Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
College Republicans Sponsor White-Pride Scholarship

By kmcrober in Op-Ed
Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:54:58 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

I caught an AP story linked from a blog today that I just knew had to be a hoax; even after I saw the website for my own eyes, I couldn't believe how far conservative ideas have degenerated.  


Unhappy with universities' attempts to promote diversity, college republicans in Rhode Island are starting a whites-only scholarship fund.  Application requirements include an essay on white pride and a recent photo to 'confirm whiteness.'  They claim it's a protest against affirmative action, and the amount ($250) is privately raised, but they are touting their donation total and treating the exercise in every way as a legitimate white-pride award.

These fine young minds are also advertising speakers for Black History month.  Reginald 'Golden Voice' Jones, an occasional Fox News commentator and Rush Limbaugh guest, will be speaking on what the posters promote as "Black History Month Is a Ploy to Spread Socialism," "Diversity is a Disease," and "How the Civil  Rights Movement Destroyed the Black Community."  Their posters promote him as "A True Black Leader."  

As a law student, I feel that I'm regularly exposed to the highest caliber of conservative thinking; organizations such as The Federalist Society help ensure complex and honest discussion on difficult issues such as affirmative action, even on what they probably feel are very liberal campuses.  Even though I am certainly a liberal myself, I'm glad to have diversity not just in the student body, but in the student body politic.  

I'm horrified by the crass and ugly level of conservative thinking that I'm seeing among undergraduates and younger students, though.  Some demonstrations, like anti-affirmative action bake sales, are merely infantile and ineffectual.  Their only real effect is to embarrass their sponsors and preach to the choir.  Others, like academic blacklists, are intellectually dishonest and criticized as hypocritical attempts to shape campus politics.

This white-pride scholarship, though, is more loathsome than any other poorly conceived Young Republican scheme.  It panders to the very lowest denominator of useful debate; its only purpose would seem to be to inflame the defenders and detractors of affirmative action, without any thoughtful contribution to the discussion.  As a ploy, is completely ignores the rationale behind minority scholarships; the only answer to the need for diversity I can find from the Roger Williams University College Republicans is that 'Diversity is a Disease.'  Moreover, it conforms to the worst stereotypes of conservative activism - it is divisive, spiteful, and utterly hypocritical.  The president of the campus Young Republicans and architect of the scholarship, Jason Mattera, is himself the recipient of a minorities-only scholarship.  I have found nothing to indicate he's about to return the money.

(UPDATE:  CNN's interview with Mattera is available for subscribers to their service.)

This grotesque gimmick has brought out the worst in campus liberals, as well; the RWUCR reports receiving hate mail in response to their paean to white-pride.  I am disappointed, but not terribly surprised; this kind of racist pandering lowers the debate for everyone involved.  

To be explicitly clear, I don't have any problem with these students' freedom to offer the scholarship.  It's a private offer and a private university.  But as a political statement, the scholarship stinks on ice.  It doesn't respond to pro-affirmative action arguments, it doesn't inspire thought or rational consideration, and it doesn't say anything new or useful.  It just appeals to the worst and basest arguments on both sides.  Is this where young conservatives are today?  "Diversity is a disease" and scholarships to end it?  Please, someone, anyone, tell me this is a hoax; I'm desperate to have been deceived.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o AP story
o college republicans in Rhode Island
o Applicatio n requirements
o The Federalist Society
o bake sales
o academic blacklists
o intellectu ally dishonest
o criticized
o recipient of a minorities-only scholarship
o interview
o Also by kmcrober


Display: Sort:
College Republicans Sponsor White-Pride Scholarship | 614 comments (599 topical, 15 editorial, 8 hidden)
Ain't the first such. (2.37 / 16) (#3)
by bjlhct on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 06:21:25 PM EST

There was a setup bake sale with price by race, a while ago, for one thing. Sure it's crass, but it's basically protected political speech and they should and do have the right. So you can stop being shocked, it's annoying.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
Doesn't quite follow (2.40 / 5) (#136)
by mcc on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:16:40 PM EST

The college republicans do appear to have the right to do this. However other people have the right to disapprove of it or express the opinion that it shouldn't be happening.

If the scholarship's opponents were trying to force the scholarship to end, it would be a different matter. But "they have the right" does not make the group behind the scholarship immune from criticism.

[ Parent ]

Fine... (none / 1) (#428)
by bjlhct on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 12:00:31 AM EST

But it's gone about all wrong.

First off, affirmative action being disputed here, you should offer some benefits you see AA bringing and some counters to some criticisms of it (makes views of blacks in colleges worse, attitude of dependency, no real value in diversity, diversity being promoted is illusory, etc).

Then you need to get rid of the moral outrage. I have a low tolerance for moral outrage. Things just are, after all....

And besides, as far as starting a debate and making wakes, I would say this little thing has had quite the good ROI.

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]

To paraphrase: (2.20 / 24) (#6)
by StephenThompson on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 06:34:32 PM EST

Anybody you disagree with is "loathsome".  

Have you ever even once stopped to consider that they might have a valid point?  

No, and yes, respectively. (2.36 / 11) (#9)
by kmcrober on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 06:43:47 PM EST

I tried to bring that out in the article, but it wasn't really my focus.  I refer you again to the Federalist Society link.  Those guys are very, very hardcore right-wingers - technically conservative and libertarian, but almost exclusively conservative in operation.  

I don't agree with their politics, but they go about things in the right way.  When the Federalists want to make a point, they host a debate, or a speech, and they love open question-and-answer sessions.  They argue well, they make good points, and they listen to the opposition.  They're not all saints, but as an organization they have a pretty good track record, at least on my campus, of fostering debate rather than race-baiting and shrilly preaching to the choir.

So no, not everyone who disagrees with me is "loathsome," but some people who disagree with me are.  Offering a white-pride scholarship under the guise of an actual statement is pretty terrible, but so is sending threats to people who do.  

But that's the point of posting it as an article here; I want to hear what K5ers think.  I want to know if this actually makes people consider affirmative action, or if it's just neo-conservative gladhanding.

[ Parent ]

I think their point is valid (2.66 / 6) (#80)
by curien on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:18:39 AM EST

Something that supporters of AA have to realize is that AA, taken in a vacuum, is abhorent. Just take your reaction: if something is abhorent for one group of people, it's abhorent for another as well. However, AA does not exist in a vacuum; it was created to address (and redress) many social issues. As those social issues resolve themselves, AA should be phased out. But that's not what's happening. Rather, the AA hardliners are beginning to believe that it should be a permanent fixture of American society. What's lost in the argument is that AA doesn't magically resolve the issues that it was made in response to. The real work is lost by the wayside, and it's the fault of people on both sides.

AA has become a cozy feature of American political culture. It's so familiar that most people don't even think about it, or they don't think about the real social consequences of it. What this group is trying to do is point out to those comfortable with AA that it really is, at its core, a disgusting institution. If you can know this and still support AA as a necessary evil (which I do, btw), then fine. But frankly, I see viewpoints like yours (that just pointing out the grotesque nature of AA is "loathsome") as counterproductive at best and culturally damaging at worst.

-1, too ranty, btw. I know it's op-ed, but it was just too much soapbox for my taste.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]

Well, I can't pretend it's not a rant... (2.25 / 4) (#109)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:41:11 PM EST

I like to rant.  I like to think I'm good at it.  And you are a disgusting monstrosity to criticize my soapbox.  Foul excremental neoconservative!

See?  Loads of fun.  Anyway, I'm a little curious; you support AA as a necessary evil, which I think almost all AA supporters would agree with, but above you seemed to say that you don't see diversity as an inherently positive thing.  So what's the maximand of AA that justifies it for you?

But consider me properly chastised by your reponse and the responses of others; I suppose I should have taken a less righteous stance.  But bear in mind that I am not criticizing anti-AA arguments per-se; I think I made that clear enough in the article.  I am criticizing this scholarship as a response; it's a juvenile stunt that really doesn't advance the debate at all.  And the people behind it are horrendous swamp monsters with tiny genitals, who will all burn in hell for their heinous sins.

[ Parent ]

Re: diversity == good (2.60 / 5) (#120)
by curien on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:18:57 PM EST

I don't know that it's not a good thing, but I grew up with the idea that it's always a good thing in and of itself, and I think that sentiment is common among liberals. I'm in a space right now where, for the sake of objectivity, I'm trying to reject arguments that take "diversity == good" as axiomatic. IOW, the issue is up for grabs with me, right now.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
Huh. (none / 3) (#124)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:27:54 PM EST

Well, no question that it's a basic assumption for me.  Based largely in experience, as well as my liberal convictions; I went from a very non-diverse university to a very diverse one, and the difference was staggering.  So it's partially empirical.  

It's also reactionary; I see segregated environements as stultifying.  I think diversity as a basic concept leads to greater achievement and creativity; that's almost a philosophical premise on my part.


[ Parent ]

No. (none / 2) (#450)
by SlashDread on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 06:51:31 AM EST

Untill the US worries about people, not Americans, about citizins, not voters, about racism, not affirmitive action, I will NOT consider their "valid point". "/Dread"

[ Parent ]
wow, what a shallow mind (1.65 / 23) (#7)
by CAIMLAS on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 06:37:27 PM EST

Wow, what a shallow mind you have. This is obviously an attempt to fight against affirmative action - which I might remind you, is completely unconstitutional. Stop trying to make this look like some sort of racist issue, and sit the fuck down. This is the same kind of bullshit as blacks being OK with calling each other niggers, but if a 'whitie' (a racist term, mind you) calls a black a nigger, they'll be talking civil suit in a matter of minutes (or if I'm going to go with the stereotype, they'll cap a 9 in your ass). Let me repeat: this has nothing to do with 'conservative thinking'. I hope you don't pass your bar exam, as you will certainly be a poor representitive of truth if you ever become a lawyer. Politically correct nonsense is not something for a true intellectual to partake in, and that is what you are doing: can you not see the double standard?
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

Read more carefully (2.25 / 12) (#11)
by kmcrober on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 06:51:31 PM EST

Especially SCOTUS opinions.  Affirmative action, especially in the form of diversity scholarships at private institutions, is so clearly constitutional that...  I can't think of a funny way to end that.  It's just sad that you're either so dumb or so indoctrinated that you think you have to "remind" anyone of such an untrue thing.

Along the same lines, I don't have any problem with the freedom of these kids to offer a private scholarship at a private school.  It's their money, or, more accurately, it's the money of their donors.  

But as a political statement, it's pathetic.  This is not a double standard.  They make no answer whatsoever to the diversity rationale of minority scholarships; as I said, their only reply seems to be "Diversity is a disease."  Now, that argument would be on rockier grounds if these were white students at a majority-black or majority-minority school, but as far as I know, that's not the case.

So, if you want to argue against AA, please, go ahead.  As I said, I want to see diveristy in opinions and politics, especially on campuses.  But when this is what passes for argumentation, then we all, conservative and liberals alike, are in deep shit.

[ Parent ]

SCOTUS makes mistakes (none / 2) (#81)
by curien on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:20:07 AM EST

I can provide a list, if you like. Not all of them have been corrected, either.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
No, not in this context. (2.20 / 5) (#110)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:46:18 PM EST

They might make decisions that are "wrong" from a normative sense; God knows I think some of their recent decisions (Eldridge, for example) are terrible.

But the parent was claiming that AA is "completely unconstitutional."  Well, it's not.  SCOTUS is the final arbiter, subject only to its own revisions and the amendment process.

You could read that parent as arguing that AA should be construed as unconstitutional, or that in the fundamentalist sense it is unconstitutional (but that hasn't been recognized yet), etc...  But in context, he was "reminding" me of something, which makes me think he's under the impression that it was ruled or declared unconstitutional.  

[ Parent ]

re: final arbiter (none / 0) (#507)
by beukeboom on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 02:04:15 AM EST

SCOTUS is the final arbiter, subject only to its own revisions and the amendment process.

SCOTUS being the final arbiter is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. How about every Supreme Court decision being unconstitutional, starting with Marbury v. Madison?



[ Parent ]
Hahaha (none / 0) (#508)
by kmcrober on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 02:16:02 AM EST

Well, that's a hell of a stance to take.  Consistant, though, if you want to end constitutional review.  But if you're serious, then I'm curious - who would pick up that function?  What, then, would prevent Congress from passing blatantly unconstitutional laws?  How would fine points of constitutionality be decided?

[ Parent ]
Of course (none / 0) (#594)
by beukeboom on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 03:57:53 PM EST

some entity needs to review the constitutionality of statutes. I'm just pointing out that the procedures for such review are completely omitted from the constitution (which is a pretty fundamental flaw, imho). SCOTUS' egregious assumption of responsibility allows them fairly unbounded discretion (e.g. the ruling on the 2000 presidential election). The power of the courts should have been more specifically described in the Constitution.



[ Parent ]
"Egregious" seems unwarranted (none / 0) (#595)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 05:46:21 PM EST

The logic of Marbury is pretty straightforward; the Constitution grants the judiciary jurisdiction over all cases arising  "under this Constitution," which is meaningless if the Court is powerless to determine what is and isn't constitutional.  The solid foundations of the power have become the bedrock of American common law.

That's much, much more solid grounds for judicial review than anything construed to give that power to the other branches.  It would be foolish as well as unsupported by the Constitution to entrust that power to the legislature or the executive.  

In hindsight, it's really almost shocking how well the courts have handled the burden.  There have been a few spectacular failures, such as pre-Civil War slavery cases, but in a number of extremely difficult situations the courts have risen to the occasion.  Brown v. Board, for example, was a crucial decision that the legislature just couldn't or wouldn't make, and which the Court handled with impressive foresight.  (That decision wasn't perfect, but they erred on the side of caution, which is understandable.)

[ Parent ]

Actually you can call any nigger a 'nigger'... (1.00 / 16) (#23)
by pertubation theory on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 08:08:57 PM EST

...thanks to the 1st Amendment. Just make sure he isn't a criminal nigger (and most are). or you will get your ass shot.

----
Dice are small polka-dotted cubes of ivory constructed like a lawyer to lie upon any side, commonly the wrong one.
- Ambrose Bierce
[ Parent ]
1st Amendment... Bwahahahaha... (none / 1) (#503)
by Guile on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 08:28:34 PM EST

 It's illegal to say certain things. Calling a nigger a nigger is one of those things. When I was going to school I threw the n word around like a nigger whore in slave times. White people were disgusted, they got pretty pissed. Other than my friends, who were also fond of the word. The niggers kept their mouths shut until after school, when they had several friends with them. They did nothing, because niggers are fucking cowards. They wont start shit when they're alone, they wont do anything more than talk shit when your not alone. Cowards.

 I did get charged with a hate crime when a teacher overheard us calling a group of niggers niggers. They came up to us, since there were only 3 of us, 5 of them, there were usually more of us than that. They were blabbing nonsensical babble like always. They were pissed at us because, well we hated niggers. No fight broke out. Anyway, hate crime...

 I would have never hated niggers if they didn't fuck with me. I wouldn't treat them like trash if they had never treated white people like trash. I personally have never gone out of my way to harm a nigger, until that nigger fucks with me, they always do. They always wish they hadn't. Fuck I hate niggers. I hate the white nigger lovers even more. All you mother fuckers that think niggers should be treated special just because there skin looks like something that came out of my ass and they can't talk right all need to be shot in the face by a filthy nigger. Us brovas needs to stick togeva, know dat.

 Not enough people advocate fairness. In order for shit to be fair people need to realize the only thing separating the races is not color. Because it's not fair to give a guy who can't speak English properly a phone job when there is a guy who speaks English perfectly out of work because of it (in a society were the majority speaks english) . Acknowledgment of race needs to be eradicated from the law/government. That means if a guy doesn't want to hire niggers, he shouldn't have to. The same for a guy that doesn't want to hire white people. If a white guy is going to get more severe punishment for attacking a nigger than a fellow white, niggers should get more harsh punishment when they attack whites. The US government is racist as fuck, against whites, it's bullshit. I'm sick of all the God damn brainwashed white fuckers thinking they ow the niggers something. They don't You don't I don't.  
>  
~$ If you make me take off my belt I'll make your ass so sore you won't be able to sit for a week. Said the anal attentive parent.
[ Parent ]

Why do you swear so much? (1.33 / 6) (#62)
by nebbish on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:37:33 AM EST

Potty mouth.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

unconstitutional? (2.50 / 6) (#74)
by tps12 on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:29:24 AM EST

Not according to the court tasked with interpreting the Constitution in the document itself.

[ Parent ]
Eh (2.44 / 9) (#8)
by prolixity on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 06:39:48 PM EST

The State of Alabama did the exact same thing

RWU conservative campus group under fire

Student newsletter loses funds over views on gays

Students promote 'whites only' award

Did anyone see his interview on CNN this morning? Kid needs to work on his public speaking abilities.. he came off as a pompous and arrogant asshole. (Like most idealistic 20 year-olds, no?)
Bah!
I actually have less of a problem with that. (2.16 / 6) (#12)
by kmcrober on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 06:56:40 PM EST

The Alabama scholarship, I mean.  It's still troubling to me, but I think I'd give it a pass.  It was a diversity-oriented scholarship aimed at increasing diversity at a predominantly black school.  I can see the policy arguments in favor of historically black schools remaining that way, but I personally come down on the side of diversity even in those cases.

Thanks for pointing it out.  I wasn't aware of it until now.

But that case isn't this case.  There's no diversity argument here; it's just an infantile cry for attention.  Much more troubling.  I didn't realize it was on CNN.  Do you know if they have it available for download?

[ Parent ]

Interesting stance (2.40 / 5) (#82)
by curien on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:23:38 AM EST

You didn't really address it in your article, as I'm sure you see it as an axiom (most liberals do... being raised liberal, I've tried to rid myself of it, as I see it as an invalid (or perhaps just unproven) assumption). You take it as a given that diversity is a Good Thing and should be striven for. Not everyone agrees with that.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
Bitch bitch bitch (1.70 / 24) (#10)
by godix on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 06:46:10 PM EST

Liberals bitch that blacks are so moronic and incompetent that they can't do anything without whitey helping them which caused conservatives to bitch that those niggers aren't worth helping which causes liberals to bitch that conservatives are cruel assholes which causes conservatives to bitch about how stupid liberals are which causes... well I'm sure you get the point. Not only is this the level of debate today amoung people on either side, it's been this way for a long time and considering these bozos (on both sides) are probably some of our future political leaders it's going to stay this way.


I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
- General Qaddafi
Oh how wrong you are. (1.50 / 6) (#20)
by Hide The Hamster on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 07:58:32 PM EST

are probably some of our future political leaders it's going to stay this way.

I am currently in the process of raising a benevolently subversive political movement which is really catching on among a select few Enlightened elites. Our bank accounts are stuffed eight times fuller per capita to our members than and GOP warchest! Basically, my manifesto, which will not be shared here, consists of using every classic Machiavellian technique on the books...including clandestine political assassination. We cannot be stopped because we are abide by only one belief system. When we gain our political office, we will bring into the chambers of congress our slaves on a harness with nipple clamps. We will gain majority in the US House. We will use our majority status to bring all bills and actions proposed by any party into law. We will then introduce legislature which is contradictory the bills up for action, and force them into law through majority fiat. We will wear clamps on our testicals in broad daylight and there's not a damn thing anybody is going to do about it.


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

[ Parent ]
This sounds interesting (none / 1) (#89)
by godix on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:29:45 AM EST

Need any help? Sounds like a pretty good idea for a laugh or two.

I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
- General Qaddafi
[ Parent ]
And the sad thing is (1.00 / 15) (#13)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 07:12:25 PM EST

these kids don't even see what's wrong with what they're doing.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
heh (1.78 / 23) (#14)
by Work on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 07:29:14 PM EST

the future of the republican party is in great hands.

Dumbasses. At UT-austin last fall it was revealed a couple of pakistani students had forged their transcripts. One of them left for pakistan and the other refused to comment. In their infiniate brilliance, the local College Republicans posted "wanted" signs with their names on it and veiled suggestions they were terrorists.

I dont know what it is about the college republicans that tends to attract the biggest dipshits...

correction: (1.62 / 8) (#16)
by Work on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 07:29:48 PM EST

it was the "young conservatives of texas" that posted the wanted signs. But them and the college republicans are largely the same.

[ Parent ]
And your problem is? (2.67 / 28) (#15)
by Skywise on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 07:29:19 PM EST

Black civil protests started with sit ins at the lunch counter for whites only.

Surely those protests:  "Pandered to the very lowest denominator of useful debate; its only purpose would seem to be to inflame the defenders and detractors of segregation, without any thoughtful contribution to the discussion."

In reality, they're making a poignant argument that you're having problems with countering in a rational debate.  That is, "Affirmative Action" is indeed a form of reverse racism.

BTW, Msttera is a minority. He's puerto-rican and got his scholarship to the university BECAUSE he was a minority.


...One of these words just doesn't belong. (2.90 / 10) (#68)
by 87C751 on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 07:04:36 AM EST

"Affirmative Action" is indeed a form of reverse racism.
Not sure why the word "reverse" is in there. Racism may be polarizing, but it doesn't have any polarity.

My ranting place.
[ Parent ]

no, it's 'racism' that doesn't belong (none / 0) (#299)
by Wah on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:10:27 PM EST

the trick of various people in this thread, and this debate, is to take the world 'racism', remove any negative connotation, and apply it to various situation that now fit the criteria.

For most people 'racism', and whenever a racist practices it, is a very negative reaction or emotion about someone based solely on their race.

Providing a benefit to someone based on their race is not racism, at least according to the actual definition.  The sterilized definition 'treating anyone different, in any way, based on race' fits, but is not correct, as it is a new defintion made up to fit an ideological standpoint.

Sure, maybe someday the language will change and that's what it will mean, but that day isn't today.  Those of you that have taken such a position are using a word that you do not understand, or are trying to change.  Pick one or the other, but don't act like you aren't doing something that is either ignorant or sneaky.
--
sometimes things just are that way and that's it. They're true. Sure, Popper, et. al., may argue otherwise, but they're dead. You get it? Yet?
[ Parent ]

Whose actual definition? (none / 0) (#363)
by roystgnr on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:47:30 PM EST

The one in the dictionary says nothing about whether the racial discrimination is positive or negative (in fact, the first example they give is worded positively).

I like that definition better, too.  It manages to catch all the "Whites only" historical examples of racism (as well as the current "racism to make a political statement" scholarship) that would slip through the "We're just providing a benefit to whites based on their race" loophole in your definition.

[ Parent ]

pulling it apart (none / 0) (#455)
by Wah on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 09:06:43 AM EST

c'mon, you contradict yourself immediately.

The one in the dictionary says nothing about whether the racial discrimination is positive or negative (in fact, the first example they give is worded positively).

And this first def. is a belief in inherent 'superiority' of a race.  Since such a superiority requires an inherent minority, it's a looking down on all races that are not of the 'superior' race.  This is why I generally consider Zionism to be equal to this type of 'racism'.

The second defintion is the old school American style (at least that's how I would characterize it).  Either institutionalized or personalized, this second definition is the one of lynching and forced segregation.  This is focused prejudice or discrimination (both defined negative words).

Now, how the heck does Affirmative Action fit either of those definitions?

It certianly isn't done because we believe blacks, natives, and islanders to be superior.  You aren't being discriminated against when you are being helped.

[Blackie: Help, help, I'm being oppressed because I can't vote and don't have any property rights.

Whitie: Help, help, I'm being oppressed because I can't get minority scholarships, even though I'm not a minority.]

I like that definition better, too.

Well, since that's the one I was using to point out how this particular phrase.

"Affirmative Action" is indeed a form of reverse racism.
is wrong, I'm not sure where to go from here.  It's only 'reverse' if you take out all the negative actions that have been done over the years in the name of racism.  If you do that, it isn't racism.  Folks need to pick a different way to attack AA than calling it racist.

Again, ignorance or agenda.

(personally, I think we can phase AA out after another generation or two. 'You grand-pappy wasn't oppressed, you ain't oppressed', but considering the history of our country and the nature of our economic and social system, it only seems fair to do something that helps move us towards our ideal state.  That history is slavery, that nature is capitalism.  It's hard to get ahead when you ain't got shit, and the Jones's are loaded for bear.  Impossible even.  But we've changed, and become more enlightened as a society, and so our children will bear a lesser burden.)
--
sometimes things just are that way and that's it. They're true. Sure, Popper, et. al., may argue otherwise, but they're dead. You get it? Yet?
[ Parent ]

Being helped? (none / 0) (#493)
by Koutetsu on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 06:31:58 PM EST

It certianly isn't done because we believe blacks, natives, and islanders to be superior.  You aren't being discriminated against when you are being helped.

[Blackie: Help, help, I'm being oppressed because I can't vote and don't have any property rights.

Whitie: Help, help, I'm being oppressed because I can't get minority scholarships, even though I'm not a minority.]

How does being denied federal aid for having been born the wrong race fall into the category of 'being helped'?

. . .
"the same thing will happen with every other effort. it will somehow be undermined because the trolls are more clever and more motivated than you
[ Parent ]

You characterize it incorrectly (none / 0) (#519)
by roystgnr on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 11:22:56 AM EST

The second defintion is the old school American style (at least that's how I would characterize it).  Either institutionalized or personalized, this second definition is the one of lynching and forced segregation.

The second definition doesn't have words like "segregation" or "lynching" in it.  It has the words "discrimination" and "prejudice" based on race.  When you look at college applications and decide, based on the race of the applicant, whether or not the applicant should be admitted, you are discriminating between these applicants based on their race.  When you try to justify this discrimination by claiming that the black applicants are probably poor and in need of a handout, you are pre-judging them based on their race.  If you think you can justify that too, then give it a shot, but at least be straightforward and don't mince words while you do so.

[ Parent ]

no, I emphasize to illustrate (none / 0) (#571)
by Wah on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 11:39:45 AM EST

The second definition doesn't have words like "segregation" or "lynching" in it.  It has the words "discrimination" and "prejudice" based on race.

Neither of which is a positive term.

For 'discrimination', the only one of our source definitions that fits this discussion is #3. racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners. which is what includes teh lynching and forced segregation.  I'm sorry if I keep moving into pragmatic real-world examples of the non-distinct terms we are using.  But this argument is about the idea that, AA = Reverse Racism, which I feel is foolish.

When you try to justify this discrimination by claiming that the black applicants are probably poor and in need of a handout, you are pre-judging them based on their race.  If you think you can justify that too, then give it a shot, but at least be straightforward and don't mince words while you do so.
Aaah, I see the problem.  You think it is a mischaracterization that the various races helped out by affirmative action are 'probably poor'.  Also, you seem to think that racial discrimination has, at some point in the past, when practiced by a majority toward a minority, been a positive thing.   If the vast majority of historical examples of racial discrimination (not 'discriminating tastes' in wine or deodorant) are negative to extremely negative, I don't see how the term fits something like AA.

Anyway, back to that 'probably'.

(Families as of March of the following year.  Income          
 in current and 2001 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars 28/)            
 --------------------------------------------------------------
                            Median income       Mean income    
 Region                 ---------------------------------------
 and           Number   Current      2001   Current      2001  
 year         (thous.)  dollars   dollars   dollars   dollars  

Whitey :  

2001            11,913   $60,429   $60,429   $79,703   $79,703

Blackie :

2001             8,847   $33,598   $33,598   $43,938   $43,938

Hipanickie :

2001             8,516   $34,490   $34,490   $45,229   $45,229

Off-whitey :

2001            53,628   $57,328   $57,328   $73,496   $73,496

...

So the problem was that you thought I was working from shaky assumptions.  And here I was arguing on hard facts.   Hope this helps to clear things up.

My paper-thin historical explanation for some of the numbers could be expanded at this point (and hence a justification for an institutionalized corrective measure), but the sooner we are working from the same fact set the better, so I'll leave it at that.
--
sometimes things just are that way and that's it. They're true. Sure, Popper, et. al., may argue otherwise, but they're dead. You get it? Yet?
[ Parent ]

That's not what I meant (none / 0) (#576)
by roystgnr on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 06:58:33 PM EST

I'm sorry you spent 3/4 of your post proving that on average blacks are poorer than whites; I already knew that and it was an accident if I implied otherwise.

I don't think it's a mischaracterization that on average blacks are poorer than whites.  I do think that it's prejudice to assume based on race that a particular black college applicant is poorer than a particular white (or asian, etc) college applicant.  You are making a judgement about a non-racial characteristic of a person based on their race.  That's racial prejudice.

Now, back to the actual topic: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit" completely, absolutely, perfectly applies to college scholarships and admissions policies based on race.  You're simply not parsing the English language correctly if you don't see that, which would coincidentally enough make you just the sort of person this "whites only" scholarship is aimed at.

Do you at least agree that a scholarship open only to white applicants is racial (yes, and racist) discrimination?

[ Parent ]

Re: Mattera's scholarship (2.25 / 4) (#83)
by curien on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:27:00 AM EST

So? If he opposes minority-only scholarships, then taking one makes him a hypocrite. IMO, he should return the money.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
That doesn't follow (2.66 / 9) (#103)
by Ken Arromdee on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 01:03:37 PM EST

For instance, he might oppose "minority scholarships", but think that they should be replaced by scholarships for poor people. If he himself is poor enough to qualify under such a program, he would not be hypocritical for accepting the money.

[ Parent ]
I believe (none / 2) (#167)
by trav on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 07:16:24 PM EST

that his position is that minority scholarships should not be offered, NOT that minority scholarships should not be accepted.

[ Parent ]
Textbook hypocracy (none / 2) (#273)
by curien on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:34:10 AM EST

He should fit right in with the other Republicans.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
You must have a different textbook (none / 1) (#294)
by trav on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:45:52 AM EST

Do you understand the distinct difference between these two claims?

1) Race specific scholarships should not be accepted.
2) Race specific scholarships should not be offered.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#330)
by curien on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:41:51 PM EST

You do understand that accepting an offer is tantamount to sanctioning the offer, right?

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
I disagree (none / 2) (#348)
by trav on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:54:11 PM EST

Clearly you can participate in something and still think that it shouldn't exist or be allowed.

Crack addicts that think drugs should be off the streets?  Sweatshop (or Walmart) workers that believe there should be a (higher) minimum wage?  People that pay tax in the US, but disagree with many of Bush's policies?  If I accept Bush's tax cut, but disagree with them, am I a hypocrite?

How about this one.  If a voter disagrees with the electoral system, are they a hypocrite if they vote anyway?  Would you call someone a hypocrite if they complained about Bush, but didn't vote because they don't want to sanction the electoral system?

If so, then I'd say there's a whole lot of hypocrites out there, ie just about everyone in the world.  I do not think that accepting an offer is tantamount to sanctioning the offer.

[ Parent ]

-1 (1.66 / 30) (#18)
by Hide The Hamster on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 07:45:17 PM EST

Author is a future Ambulence Chaser.


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

The dude is just trolling. Why bite? (2.47 / 23) (#19)
by waxmop on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 07:46:08 PM EST

I don't understand the liberal outrage. The guy obviously wanted to grab a bunch of free publicity, and get a platform to speak his views to the world, so why are people that are so opposed to what the guy has to giving him all this attention?

The white-pride scholarship is $200. For $200, this guy bought himself a lap dance from Pat Buchannan and all the other anti-affirmative action pundits. Ann Coulter is probably fellating this kid right now. Let him run his silly scholarship program. That $200 wouldn't have done anything to alter the racial situation in the US.

Finally, I don't like the allegation that conservatives are somehow the first ones to fight dirty on college campuses. Ask any pro-life group what happens when they set up a table in a cafeteria, or see what happens when Ward Connerly tries to speak at a college campus.

I ain't a conservative -- I've got way too much debt and a general dislike towards everyone that has more than me -- but you're not playing fair.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar

Because the issue deserves serious discussion? (2.00 / 9) (#24)
by kmcrober on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 08:35:07 PM EST

You have a pretty valid point.  But I don't think a K5 editorial is going to shower them with publicity, and even if it did, I'm a little hesitant to let morally repugnant stunts go without commentary.  Otherwise, too many people will look at it, say, "Oh, it's just an affirmative action protest," and look away, without stopping to think through this guy's position.  I'm happy with people glancing at the stunt and walking away, but I'd like some actualy thought in there somewhere.

Also, I don't mean to imply that conservatives are the only ones playing dirty on college campuses.  One of my points is that stunts like this degrade the level of discourse for everyone, and you have good examples of liberal stunts that do the same thing.

But, being a liberal, I picked a neocon boondoggle to highlight, mostly because it outrages me more than most of these stunts.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that it's the sole province of conservatives, though.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, friendly discourse is dead. (2.71 / 7) (#32)
by waxmop on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 09:29:07 PM EST

Tolerance and respect are gone. People try to shout each other down. The idea that we should all try to learn from one another, because everybody has at least a tiny bit of insight, is gone.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]
I don't recall when it was alive (2.12 / 8) (#40)
by Tachys on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 10:25:28 PM EST

So shut up

Any game that gets banned by the Austrailian govt can't be all bad... - Armaphine
[ Parent ]

I'd put some of the blame on talk-radio (3.00 / 5) (#134)
by prolixity on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:15:14 PM EST

or what has become of it...

It's obvious that many of the radio hosts are only there to further the political polarization of our country.

I have no idea if there is some nefarious cabal with the intention of rendering us in twain for their devious political purposes.. but even if there isn't some sort of master guidance, this is occuring.
Bah!
[ Parent ]
Why give him attention? (1.80 / 5) (#50)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 12:35:41 AM EST

Because he's making a fool of himself, showing the true colors of Republicans and hurting his own causes.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
About fucking time... (1.93 / 15) (#27)
by LocalH on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 08:48:13 PM EST

...anything that is good for 'minorities' is good for whites as well.

True equality leaves no room for affirmative action, at least not its current form. Noone in power really seems to want true equality, or we'd have it.

Exactly (2.41 / 12) (#34)
by ttfkam on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 09:36:01 PM EST

...and when the elementary and high schools in many minority neighborhoods are on par with white(r) schools, when an education isn't based upon how much money your family has coupled with discrimination in the workplace, when "driving while white" has the same meaning has "driving while black", when whites receive the same amount of jail time for the same crime, when white folks get to know what it's like to have someone assume them to be the waiter, busboy, or janitor because of their skin color, then we can start talking about "equality."

Many of the problems in society (the Digital Divide, ability to participate in politics, eligibility for most jobs, etc.) can be attributed (lack of access) to effective education. For now, Young Conservatives and College Republicans don't seem to care so much about these issues.

By all means, head on over to Apple's trailer page which highlights most of the bigger budget, higher profile movies out there this season. Go and click on each one from the action flick to the tear-jerker. Count up the number of minority roles. Count up the number of leading minority roles. Check again next month. Check out the shows on TV. I personally don't much care if it is racism in Hollywood or the racism of viewers that causes the disparities. You sure as hell aren't gonna convince me that things are already "equal" here.

If these College Republicans or Young Conservatives or whatever really believed in equality, why don't we ever see visible and vocal protests against Ivy League "legacy" admissions policies where people -- almost invariably white -- are given preferential treatment in access to some of the best universities because a parent (or other family member) also went there? After all, this practice is much older than affirmative action.

Could it be (horrors!) that most of these demonstrations are run by racist loudmouths who couldn't give a rat's ass about "equality" unless something is ever so slightly weighed against them instead of predominantly for them?


If I'm made in God's image then God needs to lay off the corn chips and onion dip. Get some exercise, God! - Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
Your Funny (2.70 / 10) (#64)
by The Turd Report on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:54:36 AM EST

know what it's like to have someone assume them to be the waiter, busboy, or janitor because of their skin color, then we can start talking about "equality."

As soon as you stop assuming that all whites are automagicly born rich and privledged, you can talk about anything. Just drop the white guilt. I know the TV shows all whites as being the idle rich, but that isn't life. There are plenty of whites that are just as poor and get the shaft just as often as any black.

[ Parent ]

Being Right and Wrong (2.57 / 7) (#88)
by virg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:27:16 AM EST

> As soon as you stop assuming that all whites are automagicly born rich and privledged, you can talk about anything. Just drop the white guilt. I know the TV shows all whites as being the idle rich, but that isn't life. There are plenty of whites that are just as poor and get the shaft just as often as any black.

You're right, but you're also wrong. The problem is that the averages aren't the same. Being black still means that you're more likely to get arrested, more likely to get convicted if you are arrested, and more likely to draw a longer sentence if you're convicted. Being black means you're still more likely to be poor, or unemployed, or illiterate than a white person, and you're less likely to get into college, and you're less likely to graduate if you do get in. While there are plenty of poor white folks and plenty of rich black folks, the simple fact is that the numbers are still strongly slanted against minorities, and saying "look, there are destitute whites!" doesn't address that fact. Affirmative action is an awkward step in the direction of equality, but nobody seems willing to change it into something better. Instead its detractors point to the scarecrow and say that it's discrimination, and it's just as wrong as anti-black discrimination, and it needs to be dismantled, and that there doesn't need to be anything put in its place. But still, being black in the U.S. continues to mean working harder to get to the same place, and none of these young Republicans is willing to face up to that fact and try to do something about it.

In short, it's not just white guilt that points out that racism is still a part of our society.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Y'know (none / 1) (#204)
by kraant on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:10:10 PM EST

I've always wondered. If you break it down on socio-economic lines and compare rich blacks vs rich whites, middle class blacks vs middle class whites, and poor blacks vs poor whites. Would those statistics still stay the same for each different socio-economic segment or would the greater discrimination against blacks in America have more to do with a larger portion of them being poor...
--
"kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
Never In Our Names...
[ Parent ]
Misquotes (none / 3) (#159)
by ttfkam on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:23:39 PM EST

Go back and re-read carefully.  When did I say that all whites are rich?  What I said was that some folks (mostly white) make assumptions that some others (mostly non-white) are employed in a menial, service-oriented capacity.  I'm not saying you, but I am saying that mostly white folks do it.

Regarding white guilt, while I have quite a bit of European descent in me, I am not "pure" white.  (I'm not even going to get into the pure white/pure chicano/pure black/pure asian crap.)

TV shows are not all idle rich white folks.  There are an abundance of shows that focus on poor, undereducated white folks, working middle class white folks, saintly do-gooder white folks, psychotic serial killer white folks, atheist white folks, christian white folks, sexually deviant white folks, puritanical white folks, highly educated white folks, belligerant white folks, claustrophobic white folks, etc.  My point wasn't that white folks are always shown in a good light.  My point was that the media tends to ignore non-whites altogether.  Not always of course (at least not anymore), but the tendency beyond just representation as a percentage within a populace is quite visible.

This is the part that a lot of people don't seem to get.  It's not so much that the doorman isn't allowing someone in to the party.  It's that the someone apparently would have been welcome if they had actually been remembered when invitations were being sent out.  In this case, the party is the U.S. and the invitation/door pass is a good education.

Affirmative action is like saying that even though the party is a formal affair, but we'll cut you some slack, loan you a jacket and tie, and make do because we didn't give you enough notice to rent a tux.  The problem isn't just the late invitation.  The problem isn't just the lame loaner jacket.  These are merely symptoms.  The problem is that after thirty years of this, a lot of folks still keep forgetting to send out all of the invitations on time in the first place.

That said, I agree with the sentiment that most whites are not idle nor rich.  (I don't know who in their right mind has ever seriously thought that.)  When all is said and done, poor whites have more in common with poor Mexican immigrants than with rich, idle whites.  There are indeed plenty of whites who get the shaft as bad as anyone else, but this doesn't change the fact that a disproportionate amount of non-whites get the shaft.

If I'm made in God's image then God needs to lay off the corn chips and onion dip. Get some exercise, God! - Tatarigami
[ Parent ]

what is the question/issue (2.80 / 20) (#30)
by wakim1618 on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 08:52:42 PM EST

It seems to me that the very fact that fewer blacks are applying to college than whites means that something has gone dramaticaly wrong BEFORE college. Affirmative action (AA) is a sorry bandaid that politicians and many of the cultural elite try very hard to believe in. Another telling statistic is the black-white gap for the college graduation rate conditional on college enrollment. Basically, a lower fraction of blacks seem to graduate. I imagine there are a host of summary statistics that suggests that AA is a failure for blacks.

On the other hand, I think that AA for women has achieved remarkable success in this regard - especially when you look at the cohort that entered college in the past decade.

One key question to me is: why is the application rate to college so much lower for blacks. However, it seems to be a question that most elites are unwilling to address. In order to address this question, one would have to admit that AA has failed for blacks in a big way and that it was an expensive failure. Unfortunately, many powerful parties (including university administrators) have a vested interest in AA as it exists and the main losers will be primarily black.

However, everyone loses in a way. Imagine college life with 10 percent women enrollment. It would be a lot less enjoyable. So we may not know what we are missing.

Some of the reactions to this white-pride initiative seems to be a knee-jerk response. Poke the liberals one way and they are as predictable as the conservatives. But the historical evidence suggests taht screaming about the immorality of the other side doesn't seem be very useful when it comes to results.


If I wanted dumb people to love me, I'd start a cult.

yes, very true. (3.00 / 9) (#33)
by Work on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 09:35:22 PM EST

the reason for the low enrollment is similar in the reason that such a high percentage of blacks are imprisoned at some point in their life - born into near poverty with almost no way out.

For decades, up until the 1960s or so, racist policies left most blacks living in urban ghettos, given poor underfunded schools and otherwise ignored and left to fester.

Following the civil rights era this was no longer legally acceptable, but it still takes a very long time to break the cycle of poverty which goes like this: poverty leads to little education, little education leads to poverty.

And even then, it still wasn't a political topic until the late 80s to begin revitalizing and really start cleaning up the ghettos.

It's still going to take a few generations for the sins of the past to be completely erased.

[ Parent ]

So then (3.00 / 5) (#102)
by Ken Arromdee on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 12:59:47 PM EST

the reason for the low enrollment is similar in the reason that such a high percentage of blacks are imprisoned at some point in their life - born into near poverty with almost no way out.

So why not have scholarships for people who are poor, then? If blacks are more likely to be poor, this should achieve the desired goal, right?

[ Parent ]

Because thats not the only symptom of poverty. (none / 2) (#149)
by Work on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:31:41 PM EST

Today there is no financial reason why a person who was born poor cannot go to the most exclusive and expensive college in the entire country - government grants, scholarships and aid make this possible.

However, the person must first have the academic drive throughout their formative years. If you grow up in a home where both (or perhaps only one) parent works all day and all night long, and has little education themself, it is rare for them to push their children into succeeding in school or staying away from the more troublesome aspects of those areas. This is difficult in a lifestyle where 'success' is often gauged by material goods that suggest lots of money - and the only people in those areas who have those are often drug dealers and criminals.

Every now and then though, a perceptive parent will teach their child that the only way out is through education and gets involved enough in their child's life to see it happen.

[ Parent ]

heh. (none / 0) (#226)
by pb on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:22:17 AM EST

On the other hand, if you do by some freak accident manage to break into the ranks of the extremely wealthy, you might find that many of the people there are also criminals...
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
And that's different from poor whites how? (none / 0) (#288)
by Ken Arromdee on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:06:50 AM EST

Surely you're not suggesting that poor black people have poorly educated parents who must work all day, but poor white people have well educated parents whose jobs have family-friendly schedules? Wouldn't poor people be likely to have poorly educated parents with bad jobs whether they are white or black?

[ Parent ]
where did i claim this difference? (none / 0) (#370)
by Work on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:01:13 PM EST

Wouldn't poor people be likely to have poorly educated parents with bad jobs whether they are white or black?

Yes. However, the parent posts were about black people.

[ Parent ]

Who needs college? (2.37 / 8) (#35)
by ttfkam on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 09:47:24 PM EST

Unfortunately, many powerful parties (including university administrators) have a vested interest in AA as it exists and the main losers will be primarily black.
Yes, exactly, because not sending folks to college would be a much better plan.

Please.

Are there other issues at work here that are stifling black achievement in the U.S.? Absolutely. Is Affirmative Action merely a band aid? Probably. Have better options been proposed? Certainly. Have they been put into action? Nope, and it ain't primarily because of the bleeding heart liberals. It's the bloodless heart conservatives who seem to believe all things are already sufficiently equal these days.


If I'm made in God's image then God needs to lay off the corn chips and onion dip. Get some exercise, God! - Tatarigami
[ Parent ]
Couriously enough: (none / 3) (#46)
by wumpus on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 11:17:28 PM EST

The rates of college entrance of white males has been dropping recently, and only the women have been keeping white numbers up. I'm sure the College Republicans would be eager to limit their scholarships to men (women can get their MRS degree elsewhere).

The question is, at what point will the author (or K5) agree with the College Republicans?

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

A little unclear question... (none / 2) (#52)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 01:31:11 AM EST

If you mean at what point would I support a whites-only scholarship, I wouldn't even consider it unless it was designed, seriously and honestly, to promote diversity rather than throttle it.  Someone else posted a comment pointing to such a scholarship in Arkansas.

Even in those circumstances, though, I'd be cautious and suspicious.  You'd really have to go the extra mile to show why a powerful and vested majority population needed the extra help.

[ Parent ]

Question (none / 2) (#84)
by curien on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:33:40 AM EST

So you'd consider a person receiving a blacks-only scholarship to attend a mostly-black university just as repugnant as the whites-only scholarship described in the article?

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
Not quite (none / 1) (#125)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:35:59 PM EST

I'd be troubled by it, because I see diversity as an inherent good, but the two scholarships aren't equivalent.  One is entrenching the economically and politically dominant ethnicity, and clearly excluding minorities who want to be represented at the univeristy.  The other could be construed as attempting to assist a disadvantaged minority, without burdening anyone else.  I'd be more troubled by the scholarship if there were lots of white potential students excluded, and less troubled if there were few or no white applicants excluded.  Again, what I'm really driving for is diversity.

[ Parent ]
YHBT. HAND (1.75 / 16) (#36)
by thelizman on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 09:50:04 PM EST

Of course its a hoax, moron, the same way quotas under affirmative action are a hoax. Obviously, no one would ever show preference to someone based on their race, and ignore all other factors like actual achievement.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
Hello, Liz! (2.50 / 6) (#41)
by kurogirl on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 10:34:14 PM EST

I hope that you enjoyed the rest of your evening!

~slow wink~

do you beleive in love at first sigh or would you like me to walk past again?
[ Parent ]

It's not about the student's race, moron. (2.80 / 5) (#45)
by fae on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 11:00:42 PM EST

It's about their parents' and grandparents' race.

You see, your heritage is what decides your entire identity. It's not your economic status, or your upbringing, or your skills that matter. If someone of my race hurt someone of your race, then it is my responsibility to give money to all people of your daddy's race. Us and them, we're different people!

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
[ Parent ]

If you're going to be so uptight (2.27 / 22) (#37)
by qpt on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 09:53:44 PM EST

I'm afraid that I'll have to side with the College Republicans.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.

If diversity makes colleges better... (2.52 / 17) (#38)
by thenick on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 09:58:14 PM EST

Are traditional "Black Colleges" like Grambling and Southern inherently inferior?

 
"Doing stuff is overrated. Like Hitler, he did a lot, but don't we all wish he would have stayed home and gotten stoned?" -Dex

Simple math proves you wrong. (none / 1) (#238)
by HappySocialtarian on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:59:05 AM EST

Diversity is expressed as the ratio of minority students to white and Asian ones, with higher ratios being better.

For instance, lets consider two cases: The first is a college with 1000 white students and 20 black ones, the second is a college with 100 white students and 900 black ones. In the first case, the diversity ratio works out to be 0.02, in the second it's 9. Therefore, the second college is far more diverse than the first.

[ Parent ]

What type of loser has "white pride"? (2.45 / 22) (#39)
by Danzig on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 10:19:50 PM EST

Seriously, who gives a fuck? Other than a few extreme racist groups, I know no one who is proud to be white. Proud to be American, British, French, etc. yes, but not white. For the descendants of African slaves, I can sort of see a point, as their origins are lost. I would be surprised if actual Africans (i.e. those born and living in Africa) have much pride in being black, rather than from their various ethnic groups and/or nations. Certainly most of my Asian-American friends identify with their respective countries far more than with Asia in general.

I mean really I care for white Zimbabweans about as much as I care for black Hutu - sorry that bad shit is happening to them, but I can't stop it and it's not mentally healthy to worry about it all that much. The idea that some people who happen to roughly share my skin color are being persecuted, did great shit in the past, or whatever really means nothing to me. Frankly, these kids should just use their white skin color to their advantage, and start committing crimes where they are statistically less likely to be convicted than the black kid on scholarship.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
Africans... (2.83 / 6) (#47)
by pertubation theory on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 11:36:33 PM EST

... have no pride in being black per se but identify much more with their tribe instead of their nation.

Most african nations were put together by the British who drew the lines with a divide and conquer mentality (look at Nigeria for example). A friend of mine in graduate school was Nigerian (and Christian which is a minority in Nigeria I believe) and he sometimes talked to me about his homeland. I remember he said he obviously identified himself as a Nigerian when outside of Nigeria but within his own nation he identified by his African tribe. I don't remember which one that was.

He also mentioned African's are amused to see black American's arrive in Africa dressed up in a manner no modern African dresses. Apparently some of the American's were amused to see African's wearing the western clothes of their white "oppressors".

He was a very interesting fellow.

----
Dice are small polka-dotted cubes of ivory constructed like a lawyer to lie upon any side, commonly the wrong one.
- Ambrose Bierce
[ Parent ]

..were amused => ...were perplexed (none / 0) (#48)
by pertubation theory on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 11:38:29 PM EST

I meant original to write African's were amused and didn't correctly fix my sentence.

I wish ruston allowed scoop to edit your damn comments. What an ass turd.

----
Dice are small polka-dotted cubes of ivory constructed like a lawyer to lie upon any side, commonly the wrong one.
- Ambrose Bierce
[ Parent ]

me thinks (none / 2) (#69)
by the sixth replicant on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 07:23:27 AM EST

it was the berlin conference of 1884 headed by none other than Otto Bismark

ciao

[ Parent ]

You should play Starcraft more (2.25 / 4) (#54)
by Verbophobe on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 01:35:37 AM EST

Haven't you heard of "AZN PRYDE"?

Proud member of the Canadian Broadcorping Castration
[ Parent ]
Perhaps... (none / 2) (#115)
by Danzig on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:56:25 PM EST

but how many of those are just 14 year old white boys who want an Asian girlfriend?

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
proud to be <who cares> (none / 2) (#151)
by loqi on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:41:08 PM EST

Being proud to be American is just as ridiculous as being proud to be white. Being proud to be anything that you inherently are is completely silly.

[ Parent ]
But citizenship is not inherent. (none / 0) (#282)
by Danzig on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 10:59:57 AM EST

I am not particularly proud to be American either, although I am not ashamed of it. However, the immigrant who actually had to work for his citizenship likely values it more than I do, and I would certainly say he should be proud of it. You can do things to alter the status of your citizenship of a particular country, so I think that it at least makes some sort of sense to be proud of it. More sense than being proud of skin color anyway.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
no no (2.00 / 10) (#42)
by fae on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 10:52:59 PM EST

It can't be clever satire, because there's actual money involved.

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
What we really need is fool-only scholarships (1.00 / 19) (#43)
by United Fools on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 10:54:29 PM EST

We will work hard to make them a reality.
We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
+1 FP :-) (2.13 / 23) (#44)
by duncan bayne on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 10:56:16 PM EST

'Affirmative action' is racist, condescending, & immoral. This (& other similar protests, like the affirmative action cookie sale) serve to bring to peoples attention how wrong it is, regardless of which race benefits.



white pride joke! (2.22 / 9) (#49)
by horny smurf on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 12:23:55 AM EST

How many WASPs does it take to screw in a light bulb?

One!

However (3.00 / 7) (#128)
by mcc on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:45:26 PM EST

That WASP would have been unable to change the light bulb alone... were he not standing on the STEPLADDER OF SOCIETALLY-INGRAINED INEQUALITY AND OPRESSION!

[Goateed neo-beatnik college students in background furrow brows thoughtfully and nod]

[ Parent ]

Some reasons for AA are nonsense. (2.85 / 28) (#51)
by fae on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 01:07:04 AM EST

Post-Script: I started writing this comment to show flat-out that AA is nonsense. By the end I was stumped and undecided.

Take a look at these (repetitious) popular reasons:

  • Blacks have historically been discriminated against.
  • Whites were responsible for the discrimination.
  • Blacks have too little power.
  • Whites have too much power.
  • The situtation is analogous to an unfair track race between Whites and Blacks.
It is painfully obvious that the author thinks that the White-Black division is relevant. He thinks of society in terms of white people and black people, with the white people competing against the black people.

I don't understand. Why is the Black-White classification relevant? It is only weakly correlated with useful variables like education level and wealth. Statistically, this is just an arbitrary separation imposed on the population, as relevant as the shade of your hair.

In general, I will claim this: If we ignore origins, AA is statistical nonsense. Therefore origins are the only possible reason for AA.

Now, I challenge you all to give a strong, convincing argument to fill in the gap. Does discrimination in a family's history require compensation today? Here are some ideas floating around in my head:

  • Pro-AA: Why do we compensate for anything at all? Perhaps you could generalise the reasons for personal/corporate compensation to familial compensation. Or maybe this is unrelated to personal compensation.
  • Anti-AA: Perhaps it is too late and any action is unhelpful. "Can't change the past." Possibly narrow down on the allowable reasons for AA, like I have done above.


-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
I've always thought (none / 1) (#53)
by Verbophobe on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 01:33:28 AM EST

That AA was put into place not ONLY for black people, but for all races that are not white and american.

And it kinda makes sense, really, since those groups, statistically speaking, are poorer that the whites, and when they do get someone who can get to higher education, then by all means, gives them an advantage, because that might help them improve their quality of life.

Oh, and the reason why they're poor is quite irrelevant.

Proud member of the Canadian Broadcorping Castration
[ Parent ]

meh (2.88 / 9) (#56)
by fae on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:01:01 AM EST

If you want to help the poor, then give money to the poor, NOT the on-average-poorer races.

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
[ Parent ]
Yeah but.. (none / 3) (#59)
by Kwil on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:55:18 AM EST

..giving money to the poor is even less popular.

After all, according to republican mantra, they're only poor because of their own actions.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
Funny.... (2.25 / 4) (#163)
by EOIAI on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:43:25 PM EST

I thought anyone that is poor is because of there own actions.

Anyone, with hard work and who wont settle for less has the opportunity to advance in this country.

I can name, 8 minorities setting next to me as a example as well as a few poor whites as well.

Being poor is like a virus, that can usually under almost all circumstances be cured with simple hard work, and having the guts to fail and keep trying.

Under most circumstances, a "poor" person is poor because they just don't want to help themselves, they want someone else to help them. Usually, they do not want to actually spend the extra time and hard work to make it to the next level. They want a hand out.

I say, if you can work at the local MacDonald's to earn a buck, and being smart, any poor person can work themselves from a tent to a mansion, as long as they plan, work to succeed, advance and don't settle just to earn a buck. Don't settle until they are in that mansion.



[ Parent ]
heh (2.40 / 5) (#180)
by crayz on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:33:57 PM EST

This argument comes up over and over again. It's similar to saying "Stephen Hawking has lived longer than x other person I know did, therefore clearly Lou Gehrig's disease is not any sort of impediment to a long life" or "I got over pneumonia without any sort of medical care - therefore clearly medical care is unnecessary and should not be used"

The sort of anecdotal proof you're trying to sell ignores the very real fact of the enormously unequal opportunity in our country. The fact that a poor person could possibly become rich through extremely hard work does not justify the conclusion that affirmative action is unnecessary.

In this country we are supposed to have equality - not of outcome but of opportunity. It's blindingly obvious that we don't. Throwing out the "some guy I know" defense as a counter to this is absurd. In what sense is it moral for so many people to start so far lower on the totem pole than everyone else? In what sense is it moral to say "no, these people do not need our help. it is marginally possible for them to pull themselves up on their own"?

[ Parent ]

Good comment (2.36 / 11) (#55)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 01:49:26 AM EST

I started writing this comment to show flat-out that AA is nonsense. By the end I was stumped and undecided.

Well, hell, that right there is enough to justify the article.  I'd like to think that discussing the issue provokes more thought and reconsideration than crass publicity stunts.

It is painfully obvious that the author thinks that the White-Black division is relevant. He thinks of society in terms of white people and black people, with the white people competing against the black people.

Anything that's painfully obvious is probably oversimplified.  Black/white isn't the relevant distinction here; it's ethnic and socio-economic diversity in general.  As for competition, well, it's not how I think of things, but I suppose it's inherent in my assumptions.

It is only weakly correlated with useful variables like education level and wealth.

Almost any affirmative action defender will tell you that a system predicated on socio-economic background rather than race would be at least as good as, and probably better than, the programs in wide use today.  It's mostly administrative difficulties that keep background from being the dominant selector rather than race.

The key defense of racial AA programs, as opposed to SE programs, is that ethnic diversity is a positive goal in and of itself, and while SE programs will trend towards ethnic diversity, they're easier to game and nothing is assured.  

As to your basic question:

Does discrimination in a family's history require compensation today?

Short answer, no.  Long answer, that's the wrong question.  The claim of affirmative action (by most advocates, anyway) isn't that past discrimination of an individual or that individual's family justifies extra help.  It's that diversity is a positive goal, and for whatever reason, a class of people is unfairly burdened in the admissions (or other) process.  AA programs give a leg up to achieve diversity, rather than strictly to compensate for past abuses.  Otherwise, candidates would have to submit family histories to qualify.  Interestingly, it seems to me like SE programs would actually be closer to this sort of directed compensation.

Regardless, it's a complex topic, and justifications and program details vary from person to person and place to place.  But, to oversimplify, it's painfully obvious that diversity is relevant, and we should do what we can to encourage it in educational institutions.

[ Parent ]

(subject) (none / 2) (#57)
by fae on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:30:41 AM EST

It is painfully obvious that the author thinks that the White-Black division is relevant. He thinks of society in terms of white people and black people, with the white people competing against the black people.

Anything that's painfully obvious is probably oversimplified. Black/white isn't the relevant distinction here; it's ethnic and socio-economic diversity in general. As for competition, well, it's not how I think of things, but I suppose it's inherent in my assumptions.

Oops, I was talking about the author of the page I linked to. :)

As for diversity, thank you for pointing that out. I have to admit that I don't care one bit about racial diversity or uniformity. As for other types of ethnicity ("Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage."), I think the idea has some merit. For example, in an intellectual environment it's sometimes useful to have different perspectives. It can also be harmful or of no use, so I'm not sure whether diversity is worth pursuing.

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
[ Parent ]

Why did physicists come to America (2.80 / 5) (#65)
by whazat on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:56:22 AM EST

And help with the building of the Atom bomb? Because they were welcomed as people.

Ignoring AA for a moment. I think diversity has to be encouraged because people have a natural tendancy to be insular, nepotistic and xenophobic. And encouraging diversity is useful because it counters this trends and allows a more meritocracy-like civilisation.

[ Parent ]

Is diversity positive? (2.90 / 20) (#60)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:02:45 AM EST

I'm in my second semester of college now, and so far here is everything I can think of that I learned from any sort of "diversity:"

-I learned that a lot of Asian people have this thing that keeps water constantly near-boiling and dispenses it so they can make tea easily at any time of day.

-I once played this Chinese card game. I did pretty poorly, but it was only for fun so it was all good.

-I had a nice discussion about how people from "the islands" take things slow. I already knew that, but it was a cool discussion anyway.

That's about it. Maybe it's because I didn't grow up in an all-white state like Vermont, but I see no benefit to me in knowing black people or Hispanic people or Asian people.

There are benefits to me in knowing people, but not because of their race - it's because they're cool or interesting people, whether they're white, black, Ukrainian, or Filipino-Hispanic.

I think this also goes with the tendency I see for leftists to emphasize the group while conservatives/libertarians emphasize the individual. (See the second amendment or hate crimes legislation, for example.) Affirmative Action is this huge emphasis on the group, assuming that all people of x race are the same in some way besides being members of that race.

The whole concept of "diversity" as AA defines it seems sort of slimy to me - like Honkey McWhiteboy should go to the sideshow of college to see the mysterious Negro and the hard-working Hispanic.

There's also the fact that AA causes some amount of racism, e.g. "They get into college so easily."

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

3.00, parent deserves to be read. (3.00 / 14) (#61)
by Kasreyn on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:36:44 AM EST

I think the problem with AA is the affirmation of racial dividing lines. Like others have already said in this discussion, it strengthens this worldview that blacks and whites are different things. The longer people go on believing that there is a difference, the longer they'll go on looking for ways to behave differently towards each other, and we'll never have equality.

I'm not even sure I'm in favor of this "value everyone's achievements" thing, this "celebrate our differences" thing. We're being told we should admire black people for their rhythm, latin people for their animal magnetism, asian people for their inscrutability, whites for - what? - their industriousness and smartypantsness? Is it just me, or do these seem like cardboard cut-outs used to do a shadow puppet play? Real people aren't like that. Real people aren't composed of a few childishly crude features that can be contained in a bullet list. Not every honky is a capitalist, not every spic viva la vida loca, not every nigger got rhythm, not every chink know what Confucious Say. This concept is part of the problem, not part of the cure. "Celebrating diversity" seems to be nothing more than a cover story for continuing to cast the same stereotyped actors in our ongoing play. And we even behave uncomfortably when a person crosses his "racial boundaries". I've gotten a lot of weird looks from black friends when they find out I like rap. A cracker liking rap? Isn't that against the law?

Kudos on the "Honky McWhiteboy" line. You make your point very well. Affirmative Action is in many ways demeaning to the minorities it supposedly assists.

Finally, I believe you were quoting from this...?

"Come fill the cup and in the fire of spring
Your winter garment of repentence fling.
The bird of time has but a little way
To flutter - and the bird is on the wing."


-Omar Khayyam.

A personal favorite. Quick quiz: What is the similarity between Khayyam and the author of this verse?:

"And the wild regrets, and the bloody sweats, none knew so well as I: For he who lives more lives than one more deaths than one must die."


-Kasreyn
"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
I fail the quiz (none / 0) (#97)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:48:03 AM EST

I haven't the slightest idea. All i know is that a lot of Omar Khayyam's verses appeal to me philosophically...

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

The author of the other verse was Oscar Wilde... (none / 1) (#100)
by Kasreyn on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 12:09:32 PM EST

and what he and Khayyam had in common? They were both homosexual. :-P


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
That would have been my out-there guess. (none / 2) (#101)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 12:18:13 PM EST

My 1947 edition of the Rubaiyat was not about to tell me that Omar was a fan of the cock, though.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

hmm? (none / 0) (#497)
by Battle Troll on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 07:11:49 PM EST

Khayyam was exclusively homosexual? I thought he was married.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
I disagree (1.80 / 5) (#118)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:10:07 PM EST

I think the goal of AA is to erode those lines.  I'm always surprised by people who say that it reinforces social stereotypes; I understand the argument, but I don't see how fewer minorities in higher education is the answer.  That would only reinforce more invidious stereotypes.  I do see your point that AA can be demeaning to minorities; the solution, in my eyes, isn't to scrap the system but to move to a socio-economic basis rather than racial.  As I said elsewhere, I think it's administrative difficulties that are keeping that from happening, although such programs are becoming more common.  I think.

I'm not even sure I'm in favor of this "value everyone's achievements" thing, this "celebrate our differences" thing. We're being told we should admire black people for their rhythm, latin people for their animal magnetism, asian people for their inscrutability, whites for - what? - their industriousness and smartypantsness?

Maybe there are liberals out there beating the "value stereotypes" drum, but I've never heard of them.  I think you missed the message.

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (2.50 / 4) (#157)
by jmzero on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:15:29 PM EST

to move to a socio-economic basis rather than racial.  As I said elsewhere, I think it's administrative difficulties that are keeping that from happening, although such programs are becoming more common

Indeed.  I think everything would work better if the qualifications were based on economics - but I can see the possible problems in administration.  I think the best motivator here is growth in poverty among young midwestern whites.  They are now grossly over-represented in the front-line military, just as blacks used to be (and could benefit in the same way from expanded options from AA).

The claim of affirmative action (by most advocates, anyway) isn't that past discrimination of an individual or that individual's family justifies extra help.

I think you're understating the degree to which the "compensation" idea plays into AA advocacy in general.  

Ignoring that for a moment, I think it's silly to pretend that AA, as commonly instituted or evangelized, is simply a best approximation of some means-based help program.  AA is not about helping out disadvantaged people but about helping out disadvantaged people who are not white.  The nice way of saying this involves talking about "diversity".  

Whether AA is a practical approximation of some means-based program, it is seldom promoted or intended as such.

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

re: SE-based AA (none / 0) (#186)
by fae on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:51:27 PM EST

Don't we already have bursaries?

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
[ Parent ]
Reposting of a response (none / 3) (#116)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:05:32 PM EST

I wrote a few months ago.  Slightly edited.  I think it's pretty much on-topic.
_________

This is obviously a difficult issue to discuss.  I will say first and foremost that I find your attitude immature.  That may be unfair, and I don't mean to be rude, but it seems to me that you're (A) asking why you don't get more out of diversity (B) assuming minorities aren't and (C) preferring what is effectively segregation.  

Your approach to all three points is wrong.

As to the first, I can offer only my personal experience - my theories and opinions probably won't be anything you haven't already heard.  I attended a southwestern university in a primarily Hispanic city.  It was an extremely monochromatic institution.  While there was a significant Hispanic student body, there was a very small black student population and no black faculty whatsoever.

At the time, I didn't think that diversity was all that important to my personal experience.  After I graduated, however, I went to a very diverse graduate program, and the difference has been tremendous.  The intellectual community is much, much more stimulating - the difference in the hallways and with friends after class is enormous, and the environment is a great improvement.  When questions like this very issue come up, the varying backgrounds and ethnicities in the classroom motivate a much more profound discussion.  

Even more important are the out-of-class relationships, which have been a huge influence on me.  As a very quick anecdote, one of our professors recently wrote a book detailing the history of the word "nigger."  It's a charged issue, and (along with some unrelated incidents) provoked a very passionate debate on campus on the issue of the effects of certain kinds of speech and academic freedom.  Having black friends in the hallways and in class and at dinner made the arguments and discussions not only more interesting and deeper, but more significant in a way that's difficult to explain if you haven't already been convinced of the value of diversity.

You also claim, essentially, that minority students aren't benefiting from increased diversity.  Why don't you ask an African American or Native American student what they think about the impact of diversity on their education?  Whether they think they would have the same prospects in a segregated learning environment?  Do you think that universities would have diverse faculty if you segregated schools?  I doubt it.  The stultification that you're proposing boggles the mind.

Finally, your rejection of diversity seems to me to be essentially a call for segregation.  One lesson that you should have learned before college is that segregation, even when not mandated by law, is neither efficient nor fair.  We deride the concept of "separate but equal" for a reason - it is an oxymoron.

You may protest that you aren't calling for segregation, merely protesting what you see as existing isolation of ethnicities in the university around you.  I say that the alternative to diversity is effectively segregation.  

You also seem to say that you haven't actually learned much from diversity.  That's a damned shame; I suggest doing more than playing card games with fellow dorm rates.  From experience, it's easy to not pick up that burden.  Even in the very, very white college I went to, there were open communities of diverse students I could have reached out to.  I could very easily have made more black friends before law school if I had tried - if I had understood how important diversity was morally, and also as a component of a worthwhile education.

Go to a multicultural union meeting or mixer.  Take a Black History class.  Meet someone who doesn't look like you, and see how they answer your questions.  Here's a helpful hint - if you find out they have the same ideas and opinions you do, you failed.  Try again.  Over and over and over again.  If you graduate without understanding the value of diversity, and understanding that it is on each and every person, especially including you, to make it happen, then you will have cheated yourself out of a hugely important piece of your education.

[ Parent ]

In which I rebut. (none / 0) (#423)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:32:24 PM EST

I am not arguing for segregation. I don't see any way you could see me as arguing for de jure segregation, and if you see me as arguing for de facto segregation, then you are implying that minority students can't get into college on their own merits. I never said that and I don't believe it.

I've gotten the impression from some statements by college spokespeople that most minority students who get in do so without the help of Affirmative Action. I would like to give some statistics on this but college admissions in general is such a fucked up practice that no school has the courage to be candid about their process. And of course this will probably vary from college to college.

As for reaching out, I don't want black friends. Don't want white friends either. I want cool and interesting friends, and being a minority doesn't make someone interesting to me.

I was going to write a lot more but my internet was down so I wasted time elsewhere, and now I have work to do...

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

diversity and conditioning (none / 3) (#161)
by sesquiped on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:31:24 PM EST

On one hand, I agree with the idea that diversity in itself isn't a
worthwhile goal. But I'm not so sure there's nothing there:

From age 0 to 8, I lived on the outskirts of a major metropolitan area,
and went to public school in the city school system. There were people
of every race and ethnicity. Then we moved out to the suburbs, where I
lived until I moved away for college at 18. The new area and school
district has a peculiar sort of diversity: there were tons of Indians,
Koreans, Chinese, and even a bunch of Middle-easterners and Japanese.
There were very very few Hispanics, and not a single African-American.

The result is that I'm somehow more comfortable around the ethnicities
of people that I spent more time growing up with. It's a subconscious
sort of thing, and sometimes hard to notice, but I've caught myself
looking at blacks and hispanics differently, and holding myself
differently around them. Of course, when I notice those sorts of things,
I try to correct my behavior, but it takes a long time to fix stuff like
this.

Unfortunately, this kind of "subconscious racism" (I'm not sure it
deserves that term, but it seems to fit) isn't something you can solve
just by putting lots of people together in college. It has to happen
much earlier.

[ Parent ]

Now we're talking! (none / 2) (#85)
by curien on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:45:45 AM EST

I liked your reply (and the post you replied to). But I've got to call bullshit on one of your statements.

It's mostly administrative difficulties that keep background from being the dominant selector rather than race.

This strikes me as a rather untrue statement (though it's more pleasant than the alternatives). In Real Life(tm), technical difficulties are usually very small issues. If there's a problem, someone almost always has a solution. The only question is whether or not the solution is politically viable. It doesn't matter if you work with taxes, race relations, or firewalls. And the fact of the matter is that racist blacks don't want to give up benefits "they" (ie, members of their race) receive under the current system in exchange for granting it to unprivileged whites. They conspire (not overtly, but indirectly, through agreement) with the social conservatives to quash any real reform to the AA system. So the only two voices we hear are the basest least-common-denominator style arguments: keep AA as is, or trash it altogether.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]

What? (none / 2) (#119)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:15:26 PM EST

In Real Life(tm), technical difficulties are usually very small issues.

What?  I see two biiiig problems with that statement.  First, administrative problems in this context aren't necessarily "technical."  Administrative problems happen in a minefield of funding, litigation, enormous real-world effects... Hardly technicalities or technical difficulties.  
Second, a technicality, from the perspective of a wannabe-lawyer, can be an earth-shakingly huge issue.

I also disagree with your reasoning, but let's skip that and move straight to your conclusion:

So the only two voices we hear are the basest least-common-denominator style arguments: keep AA as is, or trash it altogether.

That's just flat wrong.  If you follow the practical AA debate, you'll hear the SE status arguments over and over and over again.  The idea has its opponents, sure, but most of the arguments are "we can't do this" as opposed to "we shouldn't do this."  These programs are becoming more common, though, and are widely hailed as successful.  I'll try to post some examples when I get home.

[ Parent ]

Then I misinterpreted you (none / 0) (#123)
by curien on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:21:43 PM EST

Administrative problems happen in a minefield of funding, litigation, enormous real-world effects...

For some reason that I don't recall and can't be bothered to check on, I equated "administrative" with "technical" earlier. Yes, funding, litigation, etc were exactly the kinds of "political viability" issues I had in mind.

--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]

Make the FAFSA mandatory (none / 0) (#355)
by Woundweavr on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:05:38 PM EST

Almost every college student (or their parents) have to fill out a FAFSA form. This is basically a supplemental form to standard tax filings. It determines need for normal financial aid. What possible reason could stop race-based scholarship groups from using this same data. Despite the attention AA gets, its safe to say more actual aid is given based on need. However, that is including both university based grants and various loans.

[ Parent ]
Real Quick (none / 0) (#350)
by Woundweavr on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:58:51 PM EST

If origin is not relevent, then why did the Supreme Court say AA would not be needed in 25 years? 'Course you may or may not agree with that ruling but many people are quickly adding it to the basis of AA.

[ Parent ]
Why is the division relevant? (2.66 / 6) (#165)
by StephenFuqua on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:55:28 PM EST

I don't understand. Why is the Black-White classification relevant? It is only weakly correlated with useful variables like education level and wealth. Statistically, this is just an arbitrary separation imposed on the population, as relevant as the shade of your hair.

Because racism and prejudice are still entrenched in much of our society. It shouldn't be relevant, but if you sit down to talk with a few African Americans, there's a good chance you'll hear stories of injustices large and small that seem likely to be racially-related. Can it be proven after the fact? Not usually. Could the storyteller be falsely blaming racism for their own inadequacies? Possibly.

But the stories I have heard (as a business counselor working with women and minority small businesses in Austin) have led me to believe that a preponderence of their supposedly racial experiences are indeed racially-motivated injustices. If you listen to the stories, you notice patterns, you notice veritable facts, you notice the many subtle details that weave a tapestry flecked with racist/prejudiced threads.

This arbitrary separation is not imposed upon society. Though I can offer nothing but anecdotal evidence at this time, I suggest that this separation is deep-rooted in society as we are, needing no "imposition." Of course I can only speak for the United States, or perhaps for Texas more specifically.

Thanks fae for opening this rational branch of the debate =).



[ Parent ]
"Black History Month Is a Ploy... (2.50 / 14) (#63)
by Eater on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:46:53 AM EST

...to Spread Socialism"
For someone offering a scholarship, which is a socialist tool for helping those less able to afford education the opportunity to get educated, these guys sure have some interesting ideas.
On a more related note, while I agree with the basic idea behind this action, they really are going about this the wrong way - if they simply wanted to offer a "white scholarship" similar to the typical "minority scholarship", why are they acting like Neo-Nazis? Do "black" scholarships require you to send a picture to "prove blackness"? Maybe these people should have done their homework to see how other race-based scholarships are awarded instead of coming off as arrongant, ignorant, and blatantly and dangerously racist.

Eater.

I'm quite sure... (1.71 / 7) (#71)
by pertubation theory on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:18:19 AM EST

...when they glance at the app and see Kazeem Abdulla Jammel they can guess it ain't a whitey.

That and the use of ebonics and frequent references to bitches and bling bling in the essay section probably tip them off that they are dealing with a fellow black man.

----
Dice are small polka-dotted cubes of ivory constructed like a lawyer to lie upon any side, commonly the wrong one.
- Ambrose Bierce
[ Parent ]

Been Away a While? (none / 1) (#87)
by virg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:55:18 AM EST

> That and the use of ebonics and frequent references to bitches and bling bling in the essay section probably tip them off that they are dealing with a fellow black man.

I guess you haven't been to the Hamptons recently.


"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
black history month (1.62 / 8) (#77)
by tps12 on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:45:12 AM EST

What sort of ploy are the eleven white history months?

[ Parent ]
When did you stop beating your wife? nt (2.42 / 7) (#86)
by curien on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:48:25 AM EST



--
All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
[ Parent ]
Scholarship is not socialist (none / 0) (#189)
by Julian Morrison on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:59:49 PM EST

It was created as a way to populate universities with smart people even when their finances weren't up to it. Think: clubs waiving the cover charge for hot girls. The scholarship recipients are bait and kudos and advertising. It's properly and sensibly capitalistic.

[ Parent ]
Not scholarships from colleges (none / 0) (#246)
by Eater on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:50:14 AM EST

The scholarships in question come from private (or public) organizations, not colleges, and are awarded regardless of what college the student attends.

Eater.

[ Parent ]
Mr. Mattera is cheap (2.57 / 7) (#66)
by pyramid termite on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:05:19 AM EST

250$ for a white only scholarship is nothing. Even Alabama does better than that. So do the Italians.

And they don't even get on CNN for it.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
Italianess isn't a race (none / 0) (#462)
by dasnake on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:45:12 AM EST

As far as I know, being italian doesn't mean to be from a particular race, so it's not racism, imho.

Helping people from your country to get scolarship for US universities has nothing to do with race.


Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
mi ritrovai per un selva oscura
che` la dritta via era smarrita.
Dante, Divina Commedia, Inferno, I, 1
[ Parent ]
get above it (2.00 / 5) (#67)
by dimaq on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:39:24 AM EST

Allow yourself to drown in racial or two-party-based confrontation and you'll spend your life on nothing.

Those who really can bring any change to this social phenomenon are above it in the world of money-based politics.

*points fingers*

Ugh (2.75 / 20) (#70)
by karb on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:12:42 AM EST

My only critique of "the way you are promoting your viewpoint is disgusting" argument is that it is nearly always one-sided.

These types of clever stunts have only recently been co-opted by conservatives. Up until now they have always been used by the left, and as a result are described as "thought-provoking" and worthwhile as they cause those in "the establishment" to "feel threatened".

I suppose I could condemn you now for having a closed mind. But that argument has always seemed stupid, so I'll skip it.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?

A good point, I guess. (none / 2) (#113)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:53:33 PM EST

As I said somewhere below, consider me chastised.  I should have taken a more moderate position.  I'd argue that neither hyperbole nor radical stunts are the province primarily of the right or the left, either now or in the past; I think both tactics are an equal-opportunity offender.

[ Parent ]
Affirmative action (2.83 / 6) (#72)
by gpig on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:26:46 AM EST

I'm undecided on whether affirmative action is good or bad on the issue of addressing inequalities. For example, political parties might have women-only lists for selection of candidates, to try to increase the number of women in government. While this seems bad at first sight, I think it's also bad that those in government are not at least approximately 50% female; this is an obvious way in which half the population is under-represented.

I think affirmative action is bad because it reinforces the categories people are put into. It encourages those involved in some kind of selection (e.g. for a university place) to think about race or other irrelevant factors where otherwise they wouldn't. We have to be aware that individuals might be biased on these grounds; if so, they should be treated in the same manner as anyone else who is incompetent.

~AA (2.75 / 4) (#78)
by Morosoph on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:55:50 AM EST

I'm undecided on whether affirmative action is good or bad on the issue of addressing inequalities. For example, political parties might have women-only lists for selection of candidates, to try to increase the number of women in government. While this seems bad at first sight, I think it's also bad that those in government are not at least approximately 50% female; this is an obvious way in which half the population is under-represented.
It depends what you mean by representation. Do you want a clone of yourself in government, or someone that you judge will do the best job? I would oppose AA in a party that I were a member of, as I would want the best candidate regardless of sex, and I would want people of both sexes to be able to cross the gender divide in choosing their favourite candidates. If a woman wants to be represented by a man (or vice versa), AA would be doing them a disservice!

[ Parent ]
Pragmatism (none / 1) (#260)
by gpig on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 06:03:09 AM EST

As I said in the paragraph you quoted, I don't fully subscribe to the argument I was stating. If I did :) the response to your point would be:

AA is a pragmatic measure to get round ingrained and often unconscious bias, and break a cycle of reinforcment of that prejudice. Take the example of women in government. It might be argued that parties will not field women candidates, because they think nobody will vote for them. When a woman candidate is finally put forward, nobody votes for her because the only examples of politicians they know of are male - hence there will be some unconscious bias against voting for a female.

AA can break this cycle, by putting forward more female candidates, and starting to break down the preconception in people's minds that politicians should be male.

[ Parent ]

Mandate (none / 0) (#269)
by Morosoph on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:56:18 AM EST

Thank you. I should have said that I did understand that you were opposed, but that I didn't buy the pro argument :-)
AA can break this cycle, by putting forward more female candidates, and starting to break down the preconception in people's minds that politicians should be male.
Whilst this is true, I don't think that example is as important as representation. The power that these people have is such that it simply isn't worth risking inferior candidates for PC selection. In almost any other context, I'd give the idea some credulence.

If you could measure the degree of bias (eg. by measuring how people's judgment shifts in the light of experience of an elected candidate) you could attempt to correct for it, but then the cycle of feedback where one learns from one's own mistakes is broken, and in any case, it makes a mockery of the idea of a politician having a mandate (or should that be persondate?).

[ Parent ]

simple solution (2.25 / 12) (#75)
by cronian on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:43:22 AM EST

For college admissions they could have a simple formula. They should make the college-entrance tests on math, hard science, foreign language, and possibly geography. It isn't very hard to make those type of questions pretty unbiased. GPA, class rank are influenced by tacher bias, differing schools, etc. Then, make people submit some form on where they are from, and their income. All you need to do is have a demographic database of every single neighborhood. You then come up with some formula to make the admissions geographically diverse, and economically diverse.

You can still debate how important it is to have economic and geographic diversity, which can easily be translated into allowing affirmative action, since most neighborhoods are still highly segregated. If you have a test, if their school has problems etc. etc. all they need to do is get some book on how to do well on the test, and pass it. Supposing such a book could be made freely available on the internet that problem can be eliminated. The geogrqaphic and income diversity makes extra allowance for those with less opportunity.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
Ignores poor education for poor people (2.00 / 6) (#117)
by Valdrax on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:09:19 PM EST

You are correct to point at the problem being tied into poverty and how poorly funded education impedes class mobility.  However, you brush aside gross differences in the quality of schools in lower-income areas compared to schools in higher-income areas.  I don't care what kind of whiz-bang spiffy study guide you create, you aren't going to make for 12 years of lower-quality education and lack of good role models that you can idenfity with.

Your solution is only a viable alternative to affirmative action once the race-based clumping of certain ethnicities into higher or lower income groups is eliminated.  That, in essence, is what AA is an attempt to fix.

[ Parent ]

Well (3.00 / 6) (#139)
by 0xA on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:31:05 PM EST

You see the thing I have never been able to understand about this is how they think taking someone from a terrible primary education and boosting them into a good secondary education is going to work.

My mom works in a school that does a 1 year university prep course for native people with poor prior education and it sounds like a complete disaster. She works in the library and commonly ends up helping people with assignments and research. She has been asked to find biographical information on a character from Jurassic Park. Twice.

I don't see how grabing these people and giving them one year to prepare before they go on to university level studies is helping anyone. This is just one example of course, I don't really know if this is how most of these programs work but that is what it sounds like most of the time.

[ Parent ]

not easy (none / 1) (#140)
by cronian on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:53:21 PM EST

You would know where they were from, and so presumably they would need a much lower score. Their address would be taken into account geographically. If they can't manage to at least get a somewhat decent score on the exam, they probably won't be able to do well at college, even if through crazy program they get in. If someone goes to some high school and elementry school which are so bad that they never learn how to read, or use a library, it is kind of pointless to let them into some college. You need to teach these people, these two basic things. These schools need to be improved, but this program isn't going to do anything.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Simple Solution: (none / 0) (#464)
by adamjaskie on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 12:07:57 PM EST

Improve the quality of the schools in poor areas.

Having people from a bad school in a university is a recipie for disaster. It lowers the quality of education for everyone.

The answer: improve the primary education. Increse requirements for becoming a teacher, and pay teachers better. Make "Elementary school teacher" a desiarable position, rather than a low paying job. Take the funding that goes into getting people from poor neighborhoods into good universities, and pour it all into the bad schools in the poor neighborhoods. Get good teachers for them, get further training for teachers, repair the buildings, and get rid of bad teachers. Fire them. A bad teacher has no business teaching. Tenure or not.



[ Parent ]
Simple answer (2.33 / 6) (#121)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:19:06 PM EST

They should make the college-entrance tests on math, hard science, foreign language, and possibly geography.

Speaking as someone who sucked at all of those things in high school, fuck you.  I NEED those soft-answer verbal sections.

Joking aside, you make some good points.  AA is actually moving in this direction, especially since the Supreme Court sent pretty clear signals that there is a point coming up at which they'll start whacking racial AA programs.  People, including AA supporters, tend to like socio-economic selectors better than racial selectors, but they're much harder programs to construct.  They exist, though, and AA is trending in that direction.

[ Parent ]

Great. (1.53 / 13) (#93)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:19:05 AM EST

"Civil rights" is the new slavery. "Civil rights" should be destroyed before the ethnic tension rips the continent apart.


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.

So, "freedom is slavery" too? (nt) (none / 2) (#106)
by Valdrax on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:25:07 PM EST



[ Parent ]
No. (none / 0) (#258)
by tkatchev on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:49:43 AM EST

But the "civil rights" in question are, without a doubt, an evil CIA spawn designed to keep the ghetto alive and provide a market for their cocaine franchise.


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Municiple Conspiracies, not Federal (none / 0) (#480)
by BuddasEvilTwin on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 02:55:12 PM EST

...and not very well covered up at that.

  In New York, many Ghettos were the result of municiple workers surveying neighborhood for black residents, who then compiled and published that information to DEVALUE neighborhoods with black residents.

  Whites fled out of fear of:
  *  Devaluating Property
  *  Black Crime

  Blacks moved in thanks to:
  *  Affordable Housing

  If you were a Black person, why would you pay more money to move into a white neighborhood where you would be resented by your white neighbors?

  Even today, I have no problem understanding why ghettos exist.  There are still a lot white people who will openly display their resentment of black people moving in their neighborhoods.

  That's just one of many reasons.


[ Parent ]

The missing link (2.76 / 17) (#95)
by Bjorniac on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:31:44 AM EST

There seems to be a link missing in the whole afirmative action debate. Now, people will debate over whether or not it is true, but I see it like this:

AA idea: Fewer minorities than whites apply to college, therefore we must help the minorities.

My idea: Fewer poor people than rich people apply to college. Minorities tend to be poorer than whites, therefore fewer minorities apply to colleges. Therefore we should help the poor.

This I think is the real reason fewer hispanic, black, etc kids are applying to college. It also means we can drop the racist bullshit (and it IS racist to say "you can't have this money, you're from the wrong race").
Freedom for RMG! Join the Jihad...

what is there to debate? (2.33 / 6) (#96)
by khallow on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:42:23 AM EST

This white-pride scholarship, though, is more loathsome than any other poorly conceived Young Republican scheme. It panders to the very lowest denominator of useful debate; its only purpose would seem to be to inflame the defenders and detractors of affirmative action, without any thoughtful contribution to the discussion. As a ploy, is completely ignores the rationale behind minority scholarships; the only answer to the need for diversity I can find from the Roger Williams University College Republicans is that 'Diversity is a Disease.' Moreover, it conforms to the worst stereotypes of conservative activism - it is divisive, spiteful, and utterly hypocritical. The president of the campus Young Republicans and architect of the scholarship, Jason Mattera, is himself the recipient of a minorities-only scholarship. I have found nothing to indicate he's about to return the money.

What is left to debate? It's now just a matter of which interest group has more power. We know that selecting (for a variety of important economic and political criteria) based on race or sex (among other things) is supposedly wrong and illegal. Yet somehow it's right to enroll masses of poorly prepared students because they have a particular ethnicity? The greater portion of people whatever their ethnicity have gone beyond these little games. Only the interest groups still care.

I find a number of issues are like this (in general not only campus politics). Arguing over whether it's right or wrong to have minority scholarships is like arguing over which religious groups will go to heaven or hell. The participants already made up their mind. All that is left is the lowest common denominator. If the debate is moderately genteel (ie, the lowest common denominator is relatively high), then everyone will "agree to disagree" and go merrily on their way. Much like the nicer K5 exchanges.

On college campuses, the exercise of debates on such hoary subjects serves two purposes. It recruits new members to the ideological groups making up the debate. And it serves as a display of effort. By participating in a debate, you appear to be doing something and often end up with public exposure. In this sense, this particular branch of the College Republicans has masterfully achieved their goals. They have a great recruitment pitch, and their leaders appear prominently in the media. I think this "scholarship" as an aspect of the "debate" on whatever it is that they're "debating" will prove to be a wild success.

Stating the obvious since 1969.

Very good points... (none / 2) (#111)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:49:16 PM EST

I think you're right that it will be an effective recruiting pitch... unfortunately.  But it will disenchant more moderate students, and inflame only the radicals.  As a recruitment pitch, then, it seems like it will only radicalize what seems to be an already radical organization.  

[ Parent ]
Is Affirmative Action Morally Wrong? (2.46 / 13) (#99)
by Juppon Gatana on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:55:43 AM EST

I believe so, because it discriminates on the basis of an inherent, unalterable characteristic, but I still support it. Slavery was was an incomparably greater expression of complete moral bankruptcy that was permitted by the United States government, and its lingering effects obviosly still hurt the black community today.

I think the argument for affirmative action comes down to a simple choice. Statistics show that in general blacks in America earn less money and have less savings than whites, achieve lower levels of education, and a have higher likelihood of committing crime, among other things. I'm too tired and lazy to look up a reference for this, but one should be very easy to find if you're interested. Obviously, there has to be a reason for those negative factors. You can believe either that the reason rests in some kind of genetic inferiority, or you can believe that it is the result of external factors. I believe that the legacy of slavery and the systematic repression of blacks that occurred afterward (both of which were of course permitted or tacitly approved of by the US government) are the causes of the gap between the general quality of life for blacks and whites in America. And I'm sorry to say it, but white people have been in pretty much complete control of American society since its inception, and so it's hard to claim that white society as a whole -- not individual whites -- doesn't owe black society anything.

Of course, affirmative action, being a very bad solution to a very bad problem, ends up discriminating against white individuals. Indeed, it would be impossible to advance "black society" without discriminating against some whites (which makes the ending to my last paragraph meaningless in a practical sense). But because no other realistic solutions seem likely, I'm willing to stick with affirmative action, as bad as it may be. I've enjoyed a lot of benefits as a white male, and if I get passed over for a job, or even twenty jobs, it will be a relatively miniscule inconvenience compared to the advantages I enjoy based soley on my skin color. My parents, for example, as white people, make more money than their professional black equivalents, and as a result they had more money to spend on my education. Also, when I walk down the street in New York City, my hometown, people don't shy away from me or clutch their bags. I unfortunately can't provide any statistical evidence of that occurring, but I've seen it happen all the time. I asked a black guy at my college about this once and he said that in his experience it happens constantly, especially at night. This might not seem like a major issue, but being constantly treated as if you're a thief would surely would have at least a minor negative psychological effect, if not a major one. Those are just a couple of examples that have come to mind.

Basically, I believe that affirmative action is a pretty fucked up process that encourages racial division and promotes discrimination, but slavery and its legacy are much, much more fucked up, and until we have a better way to counteract the lingering effects of black oppression, or until blacks and whites reach statistical equality, I'll continue to support affirmative action.

I believe that Hispanics and Asians have faced similar but markedly less devastating oppression, with Native Americans suffering equally if not worse than blacks. I believe that affirmative action policies should reflect the varying nature of the history of discrimation against different racial groups. Because Asian-Americans have already achieved economic parity, I think relatively little needs to be done for the group as a whole, though there obviously is still a significant amount of anti-Asian discrimination in America. Check out Michael Chrichton's Rising Sun if you don't believe me.

- Juppon Gatana
能ある鷹は爪を隠す。
(Nou aru taka wa tsume wo kakusu.)
One question (2.33 / 6) (#104)
by godix on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:24:34 PM EST

What do you do when this neccessary evil of AA doesn't work? We've had AA for decades now and 'black culture' is still at basically the same level it was when it started? Perhaps it's time to quit pretending AA is the miracle cure and instead look at the reasons black culture views itself as downtroden and in general disdains education. Perhaps looking at what decades of saying 'You can't get anywhere unless whitie gives it to you' does to a subculture would be a good start.

I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.
- General Qaddafi
[ Parent ]
Cultural genocide (none / 1) (#196)
by cdguru on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:36:00 PM EST

Wouldn't it be evil to try to change the way "black culture" is? Wouldn't that be removing something that is a vital part of the "black experience"?

I don't know if I believe this argument, but I have heard it enough.

[ Parent ]

Not really (none / 1) (#200)
by godix on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:57:46 PM EST

Why exactly would education destroy black culture? Schools don't force you to change your dress, friends, ways of speaking (other than in classrom at least), music liked, etc. The only real thing schools do is help fight ignorance, and considering the reactions on both sides in this story I'm not sure about that. I personally don't think that black culture is based on ignorance and even if it was what's so great about ignorance that it should be preserved? I suspect valuing education would save black culture from suicide rather than commit genocide on it. After all, if black culture did produce a decent amount of success stories then no one would be arguing that AA is needed to help it.

it's dawned on me that 'zero tolerance' only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange. - Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]
Can you back that up? (none / 0) (#251)
by mcc on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:15:47 AM EST

Does it work? I do not know. However, you have utterly failed to give me any evidence that it does not.

We've had AA for decades now and 'black culture' is still at basically the same level it was when it started

Is it? It seems that there have been a large number of very real strides made, both in terms of racial integration and in terms of removing outright barriers to the advancement of members of racial minorities. The problem is by no means gone, and I can't say with authority that affirmative action has helped in this, but I can say I find it disinguous to say there has been no progress at all.

I see definitive statements like "AA has not helped" being made all over this thread without anything to back them up. I do not think this is valid. When you get right down to it, though, really, you almost never see any sort of hard data on whether affirmative action works for its intended purposes or not being cited by either those who are for or against it. Kind of odd, isn't it?

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

Let's reverse that question (none / 0) (#307)
by godix on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:04:04 PM EST

What evidence is there that AA has helped? After all, continuing AA costs a lot of money and breeds racist pinheads so society should be damned sure that we're getting something for that cost. From various statistics I've seen (but am to lazy to go lookup again) poverty levels in general has remained basically the same over the last several decades including black poverty levels. If AA is helping improve the life of black people then why haven't statistics shown less black people living in poverty than before (as a % of course)?

It is true that large strides have been made for blacks. Unfortunately none of them were made recently. During the 60's blacks fought for and gained legal equality that's the last time I've seen an improvement. Since then the arguements have been about AA, welfare, and other gimme programs which doesn't do a damned thing for the average black because the average black doesn't recieve those gimmes anyway. I think Chris Rock does a good (and funny) job in illistrating the difference between black people and niggers (his term) in his skits. Shortly after MLK died black leaders quit fighting for black people and have have spent the last 30 years fighting for niggers (again, Chris Rocks term). AA hasn't allowed blacks to make strides, if anything it's the type of mentality that killed the strides blacks were making to begin with.

It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
- Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]

An Interesting and Valid Point (none / 1) (#262)
by Juppon Gatana on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 06:59:16 AM EST

I believe that affirmative action does work, just not very well. My feeling is that it's better than nothing, because a huge gap between average education and income still exists between blacks and whites today. I would ideally want a government organization with designated funds designed specifically to look at education and employment practices around the country, particularly areas where minorities need help. For example, it could inject money into underfunded black school systems, or clean up and re-sanitize empty lots, etc. Poor white people need help too, and that should be recognized as well, but poor white people did not suffer the legacy of government-condoned oppression that particularly blacks and Native Americans did. One's family's economics status alone plays a large part in predicting future economic and academic achievement, but racial issues have historically had a very large influence as well.

Though I disagree with the statement that black culture is "basically at the same level it was when [affirmative action] started," you raise a good point. Namely, why does black popular culture by and large disdain learning and instead value crime, violence, and athletic achievement? There is absolutely no way to answer such a question definitively, but here's my take on it:

Up until the '60s, it was pretty much a given that in the business world a black person would be treated with lower priority and lower value than a white person regardless of their actual talent. Nowadays that problem is mostly gone, since diversity initiatives have caused many companies to value black employees as much or slightly more than their white intellectual equivalents. The issue now lies in a relatively low number of blacks graduating high school, going to college, and graduating college. It is very logical that this is at least in part the result of a culture that not only refuses to prize education, but openly scorns it. So it seems pretty clear to me that the glorification of violence and rejection of education that exist in black culture are hurting the black community by contributing to a dearth of professionals and a high rate of crime. That's no secret.

But if we look back to the 1860s through 1960s, we might able to see some of the origins of this problem. First, during that time education had a much lower return for blacks than it did for whites. A black person who had gone through considerable hurdles to obtain a college degree from a reputable school would still be earning much less than other whites, even those far less qualified. In an environment where education would yield such low returns, it is little surprise that a culture scorning erudition would evolve. It is also possible that a resentment of those who pursued education developed from a feeling that they were playing right into the white man's hand by believing that they could get somewhere through merit. This is of course pure speculation, an inherently dangerous way to argue, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

And now crime: when there's a lot of frustration with the institution, people often turn to crime. That's no surprise. If my country is taxing from me while denying me the right to vote, for example, I'm probably not going to be too keen on obeying its laws. The American Revolution is a fine example of this. Similarly, if society refuses to recognize me as an equal regardless of my intelligence or achievement, I'm probably going to be very, very angry. In some cases, crime might feel like a way to get back at society. In others, pure necessity might push me to rob a person or burglarize a house. Blacks in America are more likely to be in poverty than whites, and the poor are more likely to commit crime than the rich. Combine frustration with the institution with a disproportionate number of single-working-mother families, economic inequality, and a culture that aggrandizes violence and scorns education, and you've got a recipe for trouble. The roots of all those problems, however, can be traced back to discrimination by the American government and white society. Thus I feel that the US government should be working actively to correct this problem, so until there is a superior and realistic replacement for affirmative action, I'm willing to stick with it.

- Juppon Gatana
能ある鷹は爪を隠す。
(Nou aru taka wa tsume wo kakusu.)
[ Parent ]
One problem (none / 1) (#313)
by godix on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:26:13 PM EST

Every word you said applies to other groups that have been downtrodden. Vietnamese, Chinese, Irish, Jews, etc. have all felt the boot of American WASP culture on their necks at some point or another. Why is it that only black culture are still so down that they need special help to get past that?

The problem isn't legal, blacks have had legal equality for several decades (and legal superiority in a few cases like AA).

The problem isn't racism, Vietnamese experienced racism just as bad but as a group they aren't bad off.

The problem isn't discrimination, when's the last time you honestly heard of discrimination happening? I'm not talking about some blacks habit of claiming 'the white guy, who unlike me showed up for work all the time and did his job, got the promotion instead of me so it must be discrimination' but real true honest to god 'fuck you, I'll never hire a nigger' type of discrimination.

The problem isn't slavery, that's been gone for almost a century and a half now.

The problem, as I see it, is that lower class black culture doesn't value the one thing historically proven to raise themselves. Black culture has to change in that aspect and it has to be them doing the change, whites can't force it on them. Nothing that whites can do will help black culture until black culture quits inflicting violence, drugs, and a total disregard for education on itself. Once I see lower class blacks pounding on the doors of universities demanding to be let in then I might support AA, but until then AA isn't going to do anything except piss non-blacks off.

It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
- Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]

What? (none / 0) (#317)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:48:15 PM EST

Every word you said applies to other groups that have been downtrodden. Vietnamese, Chinese, Irish, Jews, etc. have all felt the boot of American WASP culture on their necks at some point or another. Why is it that only black culture are still so down that they need special help to get past that?

The last I checked, all those groups were also beneficiaries of AA and anti-discrimination measures.

[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 0) (#440)
by kraant on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:53:42 AM EST

I think the logical extension of his point was that it's working for them.
--
"kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
Never In Our Names...
[ Parent ]
Here's what it comes down to (2.78 / 28) (#105)
by omegadan on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:24:45 PM EST

I think the whole thing is silly. --BUT-- There are plenty of "Italian Only" "Asian Only" "Black Only" scholarships out there. If those aren't "wrong" then neither is this.

I don't know when, but at some point it became incorrect to be white. White people aren't allowed to have any cultural identity, and are supposed to be the definition of not-ethnic. At my university I was forced to take a class called "Ethnic Studies" which basically was a white-guilt class where they went over EVERY bad thing anyone who was white ever did. This university also had a large asian population -- they would advertise "asian only" events... if I were to advertise a "white only" event ... what do you think the reaction would be?

All that's happening here is a bunch of white kids are saying, "Fuck That. I'm 20 years old, I'm not responsible for any of this shit. Its ok to be white, its ok to be me."

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley

Here's what the response boils down to: (1.22 / 9) (#126)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:36:14 PM EST

The ultra-simplified response is, you belong to the economically, politically, and culturally dominant ethnic group.  Quit yer bitchin'.

Seriously, your argument makes me doubt your Ethnic Studies class was really "white-guilt."  I wonder if that's just what you took out of it, and whose fault that is.  What does the syllabus look like?

[ Parent ]

genetic inheritance (none / 1) (#235)
by gdanjo on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:46:13 AM EST

Being white became "incorrect" when your ancestors slaughtered based on not being white. You didn't just inheret your ancestor's "white genes", you inherited all the baggage (history) associated with it as well.

Ask any minoroty what it feels like to have baggage associated with their "heritige." Welcome to their world (reality).

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

You're flat fucking wrong (none / 2) (#290)
by omegadan on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:13:55 AM EST

I am not responsible for *anything* anyones ancestors did. I'm part italian, part german, part I dont know what, and even a part indian although you wouldn't know it to look at me. So I am 25% nothing for being italian, 25% guilty for the extermination of the jews, I'm not sure how I should feel for the ancestory I'm not sure about, and I should feel a little bit opressed for having some indian in me.

Your "baggage" is bullshit.

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley
[ Parent ]

That's not really the argument, though. (none / 1) (#312)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:18:48 PM EST

I think the general claim isn't that you should be held personally responsible for the actions of your ancestors, or of other dead people bearing a resemblance to you.  The claim is that as a white person, you have benefitted from systematic inequalities (albeit perhaps in a fuzzy statistical way), and that you may bear some responsibility for that benefit.

It's a tricky argument, and not one that's really all that widely made, mostly, it seems, because it pisses people off in a manner disproportionate to its usefulness or interest.

[ Parent ]

umm (none / 0) (#346)
by omegadan on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:39:32 PM EST

Thats the argument of AA, but the parent said it became wrong to be white when white people did this or that.

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley
[ Parent ]

On responsibility (none / 1) (#366)
by gdanjo on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 06:45:46 PM EST

Of course you are not personally responsible for what your ancestors did; by definition, you are only personally responsible for what you have personally done.

The baggage you carry as a white person is not carried by you, it is carried in your ancestors history - it is carried (in the form of a grudge) by those who are not white, and who's ancestors suffered as a result of your ancestors actions. Surely you cannot expect any people to forget the misdeeds perpetrated on them in their past - that they likely still suffer from.

But don't worry, it's a fair system - the minority suffers the same fate, as his "baggage" is carried by those who are not of his race; the white man still carries a grudge whenever the minority attempts to rise in the cultural ranks. The irony is that the white man, having sucked all the benefit possible from his misdeeds, now moralises to the minority about how he was wrong and how we should now begin anew. How cunning.

You can choose how to feel about what your ancestors did, but you can't choose how others feel about what your ancestors did.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Opposition to Affirmative Action is very simple. (1.77 / 27) (#114)
by ninja rmg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 02:54:14 PM EST

The etiology anti-Affirmative Action ressentiment is very simple.

  1. White kid, perhaps under pressure from parents, etc, applies to, say, Brown.
  2. Brown rejects him to his and his parents' dismay.
  3. Kid must rationalize his rejection without admitting that he just wasn't good enough.

This is the core of the issue. Many kids like this turn around and say "It must be all this Affirmative Action! There just weren't enough slots for me because of all the minorities that get in for free through Affirmative Action!"

It's true, if you are a white (or probably asian) American student, the bar has been raised. It is true that some white kids who would have been accepted had the admission board been staffed by the good ol' boys from the 50s and 60s are now being rejected. Some yes, but not all. Not even close to all. Most kids would have been rejected anyway because they just aren't good enough.

Affirmative Action is a scapegoat for kids who simply aren't good enough for Brown, Vassar, UC Berkeley or what have you. This kind of opposition reflects poorly on one's character. It is like complaining when your little sister beats you in a race. "But she got a head start! It wasn't fair!" they whine. Anyone with character would simply say, well, yeah, you got me. And of course, anyone with talent would have beaten her anyway.

Of course, like any cagey moralist, these Affirmative Action screamers make false appeals to "racism" or "reverse racism." Without the history of oppression to back these appeals, though, they cannot be taken seriously. Rather, they are bitter, often racist, individuals unable to take responibility for their own failure.

Genuinely talented students do not fear Affirmative Action. Fear is the domain of the inadequate. Insecurity before the fact, bitterness after. It is as simple as that.



The bar has been raised? (1.81 / 11) (#137)
by mveloso on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:20:23 PM EST

The scholarship in question was put together by people who already got in to college (though not Brown, apparently).

<
Genuinely talented students do not fear Affirmative Action. Fear is the domain of the inadequate. Insecurity before the fact, bitterness after. It is as simple as that.
>

Isn't that what Affirmative Action is basically saying? That you're just too dumb to get in without the bar being lowered? Whites and Asians, well, they're held to a different and higher standard because they're just plain smart.

Bunches of Asians have been oppressed for decades, if not centuries. I guess the difference is they weren't enslaved here in the US. I suppose "character" to you means "paying off a whacked-out guilt complex due to the poor behavior of your ancestors so nobody can blame you."

[ Parent ]

To me, character means (none / 2) (#154)
by ninja rmg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:56:55 PM EST

Shouldering the burden placed upon those born into privilege. It is not a guilt trip at all. I have nothing to feel guilty for. Rather, it is the recognition of my duty to my fellow man. People in this country have been unfairly thrust into poverty and they must be uplifted. I am simply recognizing a moral imperative that you impiously deny.

I'll also note that as someone who's been there, by the end of a four year liberal education, these minorities who you claim are less intelligent finish at the same intellectual level and capability as the white and asian students -- a level most of these anti-Affirmative Action whiners will never reach.



[ Parent ]

Privilege. (2.75 / 4) (#203)
by BadmanX on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:08:40 PM EST

"To me, character means shouldering the burden placed upon those born into privilege."

I was born poor. Dirt poor. My daddy was an alcoholic, philandering carpenter who would start a new job, work until he got his first paycheck, then blow it all on drugs and poker while the rest of his family ate beans and bread. My mother was reduced to forcing us to drink raw yeast in water in order to keep vitamins in us so our growth wouldn't be stunted.

I grew up in middle Georgia, in one of the poorest parts of the state. Our schools were never well-funded, but somehow I managed to learn anyway - because that's what I wanted to do. I had a particular career in mind and I wasn't going to let anything stop me.

I scored 1440 on the SATs (the OLD SATs). I graduated high school with an A average. But I couldn't get a scholarship because this was in 1989, and I was white.

I tried to put myself through school, spent years working two fast food jobs in order to pay for everything. The only thing my parents could do for me was let me live at home for free.

I finally burned out near the end of my second year. I left home, moved across the country and continued to support myself working in fast food. But I didn't forget my dream. It took a long time, but I managed to acquire the skills I needed on my own. Now, ten long years later, I finally have the job I always wanted. And I did every bit of it myself, with absolutely no help from anyone - LEAST of all the government.

And yet, because of the color of my skin, I'm privileged in your eyes.

Fuck you.

It is because of people like you than unless I strike it rich in my current profession, my son (who, goshwow, is also white) also won't be able to go to college. How long do you think we're going to put up with this before you see a backlash? Now I know what you'll say - it's just those _inherently_ privileged and _inherently_ racist whites acting up again. You've completely drunk the Kool-Aid.

But I am telling you that what you are doing is delaying the day when King's dream (you know, "content of character, not color of skin") is realized. You're delaying it by decades.

AA is unfair. Blacks are no longer inherently discriminated against. There is no racism inherent in the system that prevents black people from going out and doing whatever it is they want to do. Watching a movie with an all-white cast doesn't prevent a black person from doing what he wants to do in his life. Being poor doesn't prevent a black person from doing what he wants to do in his life - hell, I'm living proof. Black kids go to the same schools as Hispanic kids and Asian kids and White kids, and are taught the same curriculum by the same teachers. Everything that can be done to make things even has been done and is being done.

But what you want is equality of _outcome_, not equality of _opportunity_. Equality of opportunity can be guaranteed, to a certain degree. It can happen naturally. Equality of outcome cannot happen naturally; it's ridiculous to think that the color percentage of college applicants will always naturally match the color percentage of the community. It won't happen naturally, it has to be forced. And that means taking things away from people who earned them and giving them to people who didn't, but are the right color.

You need to come to grips with the fact that equality of opportunity is enough - HAS to be enough. You need to come to grips with the fact that some people will not take advantage of the opportunites given them. And some of those people will not be white.

And if you won't, then let me ask you this - when will you? When will King's dream be fulfilled? When is enough enough? When will AA have done its job?

And if your answer is "when all the color percentages are PERFECTLY balanced in ALL areas and stay that way FOREVER" then you're effectively saying that AA should never go away.

How can that be right?

[ Parent ]

Oh quit whining. (none / 3) (#210)
by ninja rmg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:29:52 PM EST

I'm white too and I managed to get into an Ivy League school no problem. I hardly have to pay a dime for it. I'm not rich. In fact, I was born to a couple of teenagers who were dirt poor themselves.

I think you're just the sort I'm talking about, though your situation is more unfortunate than most. But to answer your question of when enough is enough, I think the time will come when the negroes of this nation say enough is enough themselves and then, and only then, will their healing be complete. That is when I will agree to retire Affimative Action.

Incidentally, you said you did have a father growing up, right? Did your family speak King's English too?



[ Parent ]

Asians weren't enslaved we love the Asains (none / 2) (#170)
by CompUComp on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 07:44:26 PM EST

Asians weren't enslaved, Americans gave Asians the royal treatment. In the 19th century we protected them from having to work all thouse dangerous mining jobs. Then we protected them from the danger of owning land in the early 20th century. While we were busy fighting world war two, we sent them to super happy fun camp. So I don't understand why blacks and Hispanics need affirmative action and Asians don't.

---
Howard Dean 2004
[ Parent ]

Alternatively . . . (2.50 / 10) (#138)
by ZorbaTHut on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:26:30 PM EST

The etiology of the Affirmative Action ressentiment is very simple.

1. Colored kid, perhaps under pressure from parents, etc, applies to, say, Brown.
2. Brown rejects him to his and his parents' dismay.
3. Kid must rationalize his rejection without admitting that he just wasn't good enough.

This is the core of the issue. Many kids like this turn around and say "It must be because I'm oppressed! I'm good enough, but the white man is keeping me down!"

(etc, etc, etc.)

Genuinely talented students do not rely on Affirmative Action. Reliance is the domain of the inadequate. Insecurity before the fact, bitterness after. It is as simple as that.

------

I do not believe in affirmative action.

It's not just that I'm irritated spaces are being taken by people who are less deserving. (Yes, I said "less deserving", and I'll stand by it. If Person A gets better grades than Person B, all else being equal, Person A deserves to get into a better school. Whether all else is equal or not is a subject of much debate.)

It's not just that I believe events that happened *decades* ago should be dealt with and put aside. I did not oppress you. My friends did not oppress you. My *parents* did not oppress you. Why the hell are you still acting oppressed?

It's mostly that I think the only way for black culture to get out of this pit - *whoever* put them there - is for somebody to have a little faith in them, and let them get out on their own. Right now we're telling black people "Well, we can't expect you to be as good as whitey, so we'll give you advantages." Right now we're telling black people "It's okay to be inferior. You should expect it."

Right now, we're telling black people "You cannot be as good as the other people in this country, so don't even try."

This is a bad thing. I don't care why it's happening. It needs to stop.

[ Parent ]

Wrong on every level. (1.14 / 7) (#156)
by ninja rmg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:13:52 PM EST

Affirmative Action in college admissions is simply the recognition that black and hispanic students, by and large, are forced into inadequate primary education, and as such cannot be held to the same standard as, for example, suburban white students. In the absence of Affirmative Action, we would not take these things into account and in effect completely demoralize minority students. In a land of opportunity, we cannot allow our citizens to be demoralized this way. The promise of the American Dream must be extended to all Americans or it is merely a hypocritical sham.

Of course, these arguments will not move you because, simply put, you are a racist. You claim straight out that black people are inferior, rather than assent to the obvious conclusion that lower scholastic achievement is a result of poor educational facilities and an atmosphere of impoverishment. Moreover, you are completely indifferent to the plight of other human beings, but you should reform yourself. Truly I tell you, a noble character demands that one help others out of a pit regardless of how they got in the pit in the first place. It is not condescending to do so. It is simply the right thing to do.

Of course, I don't suppose you think of blacks as people. You obviously show no empathy nor even understanding of their situation. Perhaps this is the greatest benefit of Affirmative Action -- it forces some of our more provincial brethern to learn to appreciate the humanity of others.



[ Parent ]

Um (none / 2) (#188)
by tempysmurf on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:53:20 PM EST

You're assuming that only hispanic and black people get inadequate primary education. Assuming we use your theory, wouldn't it make more sense to make the judgement on lower scores based on the school the person went to and at what level the school was able to teach its students rather than the color of their skin. Blanket generalizations work both ways and are destructive either way you run it.

[ Parent ]
ALL testing is discriminatory (none / 1) (#194)
by cdguru on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:31:54 PM EST

The problem is tests are supposed to be a good way of determining the future ability of a student to succeed in college.

Unfortunately, that has pretty much been disproven. So, you either tailor the educational system to "teach the test" or try to skew the admissions process so that test scores aren't all that is looked at. Both of these have been tried, and right now "teaching the test" is certainly in vogue.

If you want diversity in a university education, you better check exactly what you mean by diversity. If it is a narrow selection of like-minded and like-achieving students that receive an excellent education, that went out sometime in 1955. What we have today is an attempt (pitiful at best) to have an entire cross-section of society in the same educational institution. Because of economics, this isn't happening, so we have a slightly broadened narrow selection instead.

Solution: Everyone goes to college, regardless of ability and regardless of success. We eliminate the discriminatory distinctions between "good schools" and other schools. This is funded by government taxation - everyone pays for everyone.

But wait, isn't this why people come to school in the US - to get away from this kind of a system?

[ Parent ]

you just gave the classic pro-AA argument (none / 1) (#174)
by joschi on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:01:01 PM EST

"If Person A gets better grades than Person B, all else being equal, Person A deserves to get into a better school." all else is NOT equal, that is the point of AA.

[ Parent ]
You're right (none / 0) (#339)
by ZorbaTHut on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:17:04 PM EST

So why don't we equalize the things that aren't equal, instead of introducing other inequalities in an obviously futile attempt to balance?

(1) Get good schools in poor neighborhoods.
(2) There is no step 2.

[ Parent ]

Moronic. (none / 0) (#412)
by ninja rmg on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:21:57 PM EST

There is no reason to think Affirmative Action is futile. The fact that you see more minorities in top schools is proof positive that it is not.

Everyone agrees that poor neighborhoods need good schools. People in high income areas insist that funding for schools come primarily from their municipal property taxes. They oppose efforts to fund poor municipalities because it would mean more state and/or federal taxes. Until you can solve that problem, stop bitching about the current work-around.



[ Parent ]

Pass rate... (none / 0) (#441)
by kraant on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:58:59 AM EST

What's the pass rate of people who got in by AA?

If they aren't getting the little bit of useless paper called a degree at the end of it I wouldn't call it working.

If they are then it is.

That'd be the real metric of success.
--
"kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
Never In Our Names...
[ Parent ]

If the pass rate is nonzero, (none / 0) (#484)
by ninja rmg on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 04:09:10 PM EST

And it is, then more minority students are getting degrees as a result. Even if the pass rate is significantly worse than white and asian pass rates, Affirmative action is still a good thing.



[ Parent ]
Sliding scale (none / 0) (#506)
by kraant on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 12:34:38 AM EST

Maybe it'd be better to think of it as a sliding scale. With total failure as a zero pass rate and total success as a 100% pass rate.

I'd be suspicious of, keep in mind I'm not an American, any non-zero pass rate being a success since the impression I'm getting is that some minority students from upper/upper-middle class backgrounds, who would probably get a college education even without AA, would be counted among the stats.
--
"kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
Never In Our Names...
[ Parent ]

Equality (none / 1) (#184)
by ttfkam on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:41:50 PM EST

Public schools are commonly funded through property taxes (at least they are in California and other states). We agree that decades ago racism was blatant and obvious, yes? We agree that folks were kept out of better jobs, better schools, better neighborhoods, etc. So we have populations who had lower paying jobs, schools that were underfunded, elementary and high schools that underperformed, universities that have relatively few minorities relative to the overall population, overcrowded neighborhoods that are chocked full of folks who were routinely denied home loans in better neighborhoods, a higher mortality rate (both in lifespan and infant mortality) largely due to inadequate health coverage (if it could be afforded at all), cultures conditioned against higher education through slavery, Jim Crow laws, the seizure of property in the southwest (there's a reason why most of the cities have Spanish names), the seizure of property in the midwest (there's a reason why many of the locations have Native American names)...

Yes, the non-whites who get stopped by police because they're driving in a white neighborhood (DWB) are treated equally. When was the last time you heard of a white person getting pulled over because they were driving around in a chicano neighborhood?

...and you're going to say with a straight face to us, "all else being equal"? You're right, the events of the past should have been dealt with and put aside, but they weren't, and it wasn't the fault of affirmative action. You and your friends did not oppress except for inane comments like "all else being equal" when it is obviously not equal (without taking AA into consideration). Your parents voted for people who kept the status quo and made no lasting efforts to push their representatives to take certain stands. I'm sure they bear no malice towards non-whites, but they are not innocent. Their responsibility is simply diffused over a larger population.

As for "let[ting] them get out [of this pit] on their own," that's bullshit. No one pulls themselves up by their bootstraps. Most of those students who made it into college without AA had a supportive family that expected and (more importantly) knew how to adequately prepare them for university. By and large, the families were also wealthier than their non-college-attending brethren.

The folks people see on TV are mostly white ("Cops" doesn't count). The folks in the movies are mostly white. (Ever notice that a movie with an all black or chicano cast is called a black or chicano film or "ethnic" film, but a film with only white actors is just considered a film with no racial agenda?) The folks on Capital Hill are mostly white -- y'know, the folks who make the laws for everyone else?

Distribution of wealth is not equal. (Concurrantly, poverty rates are not equal.) Education levels are not equal. Quality of education is not equal. Representation in the media and in politics is not equal. Could you please explain how you see "all else being equal"? In order to make things more equal, you have to start somewhere. What better places to start than education and a livable wage?

Right now, we're telling black people "You cannot be as good as the other people in this country, so don't even try."
As opposed to telling black people, "All things are equal, discrimination is in your head, and you obviously aren't as good." Oh yes! And let's not forget, "I don't care why it's happening."

Yeah, that's an improvement.

No one lives in a vacuum. Everyone is strongly affected by their environment -- especially when growing up. Affirmative action is an attempt to vary that environment for the better (ie. the balance). I don't see that as a bad thing.


If I'm made in God's image then God needs to lay off the corn chips and onion dip. Get some exercise, God! - Tatarigami
[ Parent ]

It happens (none / 0) (#289)
by TheBeardedScorpion on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:13:45 AM EST

When was the last time you heard of a white person getting pulled over because they were driving around in a chicano neighborhood?

The cops will often pull people over in black neighborhoods with a lot of drug sales for "looking suspicious," (ie: being white) in order to make a posession arrest.



[ Parent ]
errmm (none / 3) (#143)
by cestmoi on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:03:46 PM EST

I'd say your analysis is seriously short on the facts. I work with some very bright students and I've seen more than one case where admission appeared to be arbitrary. Granted, I have the advantage of knowing the kids but nonetheless I've seen cases where students with markedly lower GPA's and test scores were admitted when far stronger candidates (using whatever measure you care to) were denied admission.

Berkeley is especially bad. GPA's and test scores are proxies at best - they certainly don't give a complete picture of the applicant. There are plenty of cases of students who focus on their grades and scores to the exclusion of actually learning - they're gaming the system. On the other hand, it's beyond me what a student who can't score above 600 on either the Math or Verbal SAT is doing at Cal. And yet the tables show that they're being admitted. The tests simply aren't that difficult, and unfortunately, were dumbed down even further in 1996.

The San Francisco Chronicle quoted an Assemblyman as saying that if Cal didn't bump its admission rates of Hispanic applicants that he didn't see any reason to fund the University. With yahoos like that writing legislation and establishing budgets, it's no wonder we're having academic problems in California.

[ Parent ]

Hypocrit (1.80 / 15) (#122)
by sellison on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:21:26 PM EST

why don't you attack the thousands of racist scholarships for African-Americans, American Indians, Hispanics, before attacking this lone example of a Caucasian American scholarship!

This is a point to demonstrate the rampant racism of the left, where new 'insert any race but caucasion here' scholarships and other preferences are implemented every day!

These fine young Americans are demonstrating an important point and revealing the left's attempts to hide their socialist agenda under the guise of helping people.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

Heh! Stop Hanoi John? (none / 1) (#130)
by Pop Top on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:49:13 PM EST

McCain or Kerry?

[ Parent ]
Kerry (none / 2) (#132)
by prolixity on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:06:33 PM EST

In reference to the two doctored photos unleashed by users at Free Republic showing him at a podium with Jane Fonda.
Bah!
[ Parent ]
Hey what about the true photos (none / 2) (#152)
by grouse on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:49:43 PM EST

of Donald "I-only-work-for-evil-dictators" Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?

You sad bastard!

"Grouse please don't take this the wrong way... To be quite frank, you are throwing my inner Chi out of its harmonious balance with nature." -- Tex Bigballs
[ Parent ]

Regarding to the 'real' photos (none / 1) (#192)
by shigelojoe on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:05:35 PM EST

Speaking of the undoctored photos that show John Kerry at a demonstration with Jane Fonda, it should be noted that the photos were taken two years before her propaganda tour in North Vietnam. In fact, John Kerry disapproved of her actions in Vietnam; thus, it is unfair to criticize him as being 'Hanoi' John.

I should probably note that I am not in any way associated with the campaigns of any of the presidential candidates, lest someone question my motivations in dispelling that particular rumor.

[ Parent ]

Sellison knows that (none / 0) (#276)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 10:47:38 AM EST

He's a well-documented troll.  

[ Parent ]
Tee! Hee! (1.00 / 11) (#129)
by Pop Top on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:46:44 PM EST

. . .I feel that I'm regularly exposed. . .

No further comment needed. . .

:-)

Republican career training for the outsourced. . . (1.00 / 6) (#131)
by Pop Top on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 03:55:02 PM EST

Repeat after me:

Sir, can we super-size your order?

A wise man once said... (2.40 / 10) (#135)
by 123456789 on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:16:34 PM EST

"Demonstrate absurdity by being absurd."

The point here is that these people feel that the AA scholarships are absurd, so they are doing their best to demonstrate how absurd it looks if you insert "white" in place of "African American", "Hispanic" or whatever else.

Free brownie points to the first person who knows who that wise man is.

---
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
It hardly seems fair to call him wise... (none / 0) (#142)
by petard on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 04:53:58 PM EST

Or do you mean someone other than Rush Limbaugh? [/ducks and runs]

[ Parent ]
Good Point (none / 0) (#532)
by 123456789 on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 07:25:16 PM EST

I guess the guy can't be *that* wise if he got nailed for narcotics... maybe I should have phrased it "a rich man once said..."

Oh, yeah, and you get the cookie.

---
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
[ Parent ]
This is rich (none / 1) (#255)
by 49399 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:35:42 AM EST

if you insert "white" in place of "African American", "Hispanic" or whatever else.
It is absurd to do so after three centuries of imposed discrimination.

[ Parent ]
What's the problem with it? (2.54 / 11) (#145)
by NateTG on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:07:04 PM EST

Realistically, would you have such a big problem if I were to walk down the street once a year, and hand a random white person $250?  It's my money, I can do what I like with it.

The thing that the College Republicans are complaining about, and their point is at least partially valid, is that creating racist guidelines or admission criteria is not a realistic approach to eliminating racism.

Some people suggest that racially neutral socio-economic guidelines can be used instead, but it has been argued that minority students recieve inferior educations even in communities dominated by that minority.  That is to say, for example, that in a 10% white, 90% black community the white students are likely to recieve a 'better' education.

Unfortunately, any serious discussion of 'race' issues rapidly comes down to the problem that the notion of race is poorly defined.  People talk about 'african american' but I've met South Africans that would most certainly not be described appropriately as black.  The clearest example for me that the notion of 'race' is not genetic is that anti-semitism qualifies as racism.

If you accept the notion of race as culture instead of race as genetics, then the nature of the beast is quite different:

Culture is about clothes, speech, and physical manners.  Clearly those things are not only accepted as things that affect the way that interactions occur, but they are expected to be things that affect interactions.  That's, for example, why all of the presidential candidates wear suits, and have fancy haircuts, and why John Edwards advertises that he's a viable candidate in the South because of the way that he speaks.

But culture also affects the domestic environment of families, and thus the efficacy of public education, so it's not really suprising that different cultural groups respond differently to public education.

If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the premise that the differences in the effect of public education are primarily cultural, should it be necessary for public schools to create admission criteria based on cultural guidelines?  Does it, for example, make sense to create (public) scholarships or affirmative action for atheists?  This is a contentious issue because many cultural or ethnic customs are seen as voluntary, but for young people, it's often the parent's descision.

No diversity without separation! (none / 3) (#146)
by Jonathan Walther on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:07:13 PM EST

No taxation without representation!

(Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")


Who needs it anyway? (2.50 / 4) (#147)
by ubernostrum on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:25:44 PM EST

Affirmative action for college applicants is about as useful as a heart transplant for a dead man. Correction of the historical inequities of racism need to begin far earlier if they're going to have any effect.


--
You cooin' with my bird?
You could almost respect these guys if... (2.50 / 14) (#153)
by elenchos on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:50:19 PM EST

...they ever once suggested eliminating preferential admission for the kids of alumni, or scholarships for them. But somehow perks for the legacy club are never called "affirmative action."

Ever wonder what college George W. Bush would have gone to if he'd been admitted on his merit alone?

Adequacy.org

GWB AA (none / 2) (#155)
by loqi on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 05:57:54 PM EST

C'mon, be fair to ole George of the Texan Jungle. Yes, he would have probably only been accepted at Ghetto Community College, but I'm sure that's on account of the crappy public school system he had to endure.

Oh wait.

[ Parent ]
Couldn't agree more (2.25 / 4) (#178)
by esrever on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:22:10 PM EST

But just because they have failed to raise this issue in the same breath doesn't invalidate what they are saying.

One injustice at a time :-)

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Yes, it does invalidate it. They are hypocrites. (2.00 / 7) (#183)
by elenchos on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:39:53 PM EST

They claim they oppose favoritism and believe in equality and fair treatment for all.

Yet they only criticize when non-establishment groups get special help. They ignore the very advantages of the wealthy and powerful that inspired affirmative action in the first place, and so reduce what could have been a consistent and moral argument into a mere class war between the haves and have nots.

They are not protesting inequality. They are partisans trying to protect what one class has and what another class wants to take away from them. Morally, they are the equivalent to the opposite faction, with the exception that it is impossible for a reasonable person to feel the slightest pity for them.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

Blah (none / 2) (#185)
by Julian Morrison on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:48:27 PM EST

They claim they oppose favoritism and believe in equality and fair treatment for all. Yet they only criticize when non-establishment groups get special help.
They're protesting one issue, not another. There's no reason they have to protest every bad thing at once.

[ Parent ]
Yes, and we only put black criminals in prison. (none / 3) (#193)
by elenchos on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:08:58 PM EST

They're prosecuting one color of criminal, not another. There's no reason to prosecute every bad person at once.

Oh wait, here's a reason: justice.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

what does that have to do with affirmative action? (none / 3) (#207)
by esrever on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:21:34 PM EST

I don't think the situation you describe is good, I think it's bad.  But, it has nothing to do with whether affirmative action is good/bad or not.  It may be a cliche to say that two wrongs don't make a right, but it's certainly true here.  Unless you are trying to argue that because the US puts lots of blacks in prison unjustly, it can make it better by sending some to college that wouldn't otherwise have gone?

BTW, I'm not being facetious above, but it really does seem to me that your anger at the obvious unjustness of one situation (blacks being imprisoned) has blinded you to a more subtle injustice; race being used to determine whether one should go to college or not...

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Awwww, poor fragmal... (none / 0) (#220)
by esrever on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:19:04 PM EST

...it appears I've hurt his feelings.

waves

Hi fragmal!

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Don't play dumb. (none / 0) (#553)
by Estanislao Martínez on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 05:30:25 AM EST

If you can't see the connection between the facts that in your society (a) black people are prosecuted, convicted and sentenced at a higher rate for the same crimes as white people, and (b) black people are, other things being equal, less likely to go to college than white people, then I have to conclude your problem is not a weakness of logic, but rather one of the will. And that's the charitable hypothesis.

--em
[ Parent ]

A minor point (none / 0) (#606)
by esrever on Sun Mar 07, 2004 at 10:14:29 PM EST

In my society blacks aren't prosecuted; I don't live in the USoA.

The problem with the issues that you raise is that this:
"""
...black people are, other things being equal, less likely to go to college than white people...
"""

Just isn't true.  All things aren't equal, and cultural and economic forces at the grade school level are surely one of the greatest crippling factors for the levelling of the College-entering playing field for blacks.  I believe that the assistance and resources should be directed at this level, not once all the foundational learning has already occurred.

shrugs
I agree there's a problem, I just disagree on the best way to solve it.


Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Take off your blinkers. (none / 3) (#187)
by esrever on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:52:08 PM EST

If what they are saying is correct, it's correct.

It doesn't matter whether or not they happen to fail to condemn $your_favourite_hobbyhorse.  If they all are recipients of preferential treatment because of previous familial alumni ties, or whatever, then yes, they're hypocrites, but they're also correct hypocrites.  Incidentally though, this is a moot point, as you don't know that they are all recipients of such treatment.  They aren't condemning all blacks, or all asians, or all affirmative action programmes, they're just doing something that makes people think hard about the world they live in.  You on the other hand have just blanket-condemned all of them.  Guilt by association.

Nice one McCarthy.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

I can live with that. (1.57 / 7) (#191)
by elenchos on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:04:07 PM EST

A blanket condemnation of College Republicans isn't going to make me lose any sleep. They deserve it. If they don't want to be criticized for the failings of the group they choose to join, they shouldn't join it. If you think that's bad, you should hear what kind of "guilt by association" I heap upon members of the Aryan Nations or the mafia.

It is exactly the same as a police force that throws the book at black criminals and goes easy on whites. The fact that the suspects being discriminated against may in fact be guilty does not in the least reduce the grave injustice taking place, and is no defense whatsoever against the charge of racism.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

*shrugs* (none / 1) (#205)
by esrever on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:16:34 PM EST

No.  The one does not follow from the other.  Do some College Republicans get into college on Alumni ties, sure.  Do other people get into college on Alumni ties, sure.  Do Alumni ties really have anything to do specifically with the College Republicans, no.
Note that I condone this, but your argument that the organisation is somehow evil because of some of its members is false.  Your comparison to the Aryan Nation or the Mafia is equally false.  I don't know if these organisations have 'Vision Statements' or similar (unlikely) but unless the College Republicans do, and it states that the organisation is categorically in favour of the continuation of Alumni privileges for college entrance, then your accusations are unjust.

Do you want to align yourself publically as an unjust person?  If so, I will happily ignore your opinions from now on, as they will be demonstrably coloured by your unjust bias.  If not then think hard about how much -and for what- you criticise the College Republicans, because by the measure that you judge others, so also shall others judge you.


Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Oh no! (1.00 / 5) (#209)
by The Jews on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:29:51 PM EST

Do you want to align yourself publically as an unjust person?  If so, I will happily ignore your opinions from now on, as they will be demonstrably coloured by your unjust bias.

I'm sure elenchos is pissing his pants over that grave threat there, you fucking retard. It's a shame you don't know how to read, because then you'd see how stupid your comments are.

You call these bagels?
[ Parent ]

No, you fucking retard (none / 1) (#213)
by esrever on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:40:41 PM EST

  1. He bitches that the College Republicans are hypocrites (probably true)
  2. He bitches that the US justice system is unjust towards blacks (probably true)
  3. He then demonstrates publically that he also is unjust and therefore a hypocrite.  
How seriously exactly were you expecting me to take him?

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
Not very smart, are you? (none / 3) (#216)
by ninja rmg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:07:45 PM EST

elenchos's point is tied to the logic of the Junior Fascists' argument. They claim that Affirmative Action is wrong, presumably, because they believe that "merit" should be the sole determiner of admission. As such, it follows that they must oppose the alumni advantage as well, but they do not. It then follows that their real motivations are not fairness or justice but the much crasser class war elenchos mentions.

Honestly, learn to read.



[ Parent ]

Unbelievable (none / 1) (#219)
by esrever on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:17:54 PM EST

Does no one teach logic in school anymore?
Let us assume for a moment that either affirmative action is wrong, or it is not.

Now, if it is not wrong, then what the 'Junior Fascists' (your pejorative) is doing is not wrong.  Ergo, elenchos and yourself have no valid complaint against them.

If it is wrong, then what the 'Junior Fascists' (your pejorative) are doing is wrong, and so is every other affirmative action plan in the country.

No other issues impact on this.  Whether the 'Junior Fascists' (your pejorative) support legalising marijuana, late term abortions, the outlawing of oral sex, alumni advantage, or anything else is a pure red herring and does not bear on the issue at hand.  Which is that affirmative action is based in the first instance on race.  The alumni advantage is only by incident a racial issue, and in fact, after years of affirmative action, blacks are advantaged by this too now (not all, but then, not all whites or asians or anything else are advantaged by this either).

Your and elenchos' conflation of the two does a disservice to rational thought everywhere.

Honestly, learn to think.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

To reiterate (none / 2) (#222)
by ninja rmg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:28:13 PM EST

It speaks to their motives. Whether they are right or not is entirely beside the point. It is a question of the logic of their position, which you do not seem to want to address.

I don't want to have to repeat myself again, so if you'll please, reread elenchos posts before you reply any further in this thread.



[ Parent ]

Excuse me (none / 0) (#228)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:30:38 AM EST

But it is you who have muddied the issue here; the article is about affirmative action, not alumni advantage:
Is affirmative action (ie discrimination on the basis of race) right, or is it wrong?  It really is a very simple question.

They are pointing out a racial discrimination issue, not a 'fairness entering college' issue.  A point which you seem unable to grasp.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

What's wrong with racial discrimination? (none / 1) (#241)
by elenchos on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:21:07 AM EST

Ooh! I know what's wrong with racial discrimination!

It's unfair.

Sounds like the same issue to me. Yet there is a certain point of view that looks at all the unfairness that we see all around us, every day, and the only kind that they want to put a stop to is the kind that helps minorities. Interesting point of view, I'll give you that. But I don't subscribe to it.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhht. (none / 0) (#256)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:39:58 AM EST

So, not fair == bad?
Perhaps, but I disagree.  Life isn't fair.

But anyhow, I digress.  What you're saying this boils down to is that unless one is actively attempting to eliminate injustice in every area upon which one's life touches, then automatically any efforts that one does make to eliminate injustice in some area is suspect and worthless?  That sounds like an awfully cynical viewpoint to me.  Aside of course from how facile and simplistic it is.

But on a different note.  No, I just can't be bothered.  You want to see the worst in everyone, go ahead, knock yourself out.  As I said way back in my first post in this thread:
"
One injustice at a time :-)
"

...if you can't respect someone trying to make the world a better place one issue at a time, well, that says more about you than them.  Racial discrimination is as abhorrent now as it was 50 years ago as it was 200 years ago.  The rules may have changed but I still recognise the ugly face underneath.


Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

heh (none / 0) (#380)
by Battle Troll on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:49:13 PM EST

...if you can't respect someone trying to make the world a better place one issue at a time, well, that says more about you than them.

The question is: are they bigots? They don't like preferential admissions when brown people are the beneficiaries, but they don't mind them when white people, such a GWB, benefit. You do the math, pal.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

I have no love for GWB (none / 0) (#395)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:31:11 PM EST

And to answer your question he probably is ;-)  But he and his ilk didn't get their preferential admissions because of their colour, but because of whose son/daughter they were.  A slight but important distinction (repulsive nonetheless).

Now, if some group out there started campaigning for the abolition of alumni advantage, and an official from the College Republicans with authority to speak on behalf of the organisation came out swinging trying to knock the idea down, then I'd call them bigots.  Do you have any links I can peruse documenting this?

Thanks,


Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

huh? (none / 0) (#402)
by Battle Troll on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:46:40 PM EST

But he and his ilk didn't get their preferential admissions because of their colour, but because of whose son/daughter they were.

So what? The preference isn't bigotry because it's only in favour of wealthy, well-connected whites? While it may not be simple colour bigotry, I can't just sanguinely accept it to be ok.

Now, if some group out there started campaigning for the abolition of alumni advantage, and an official from the College Republicans with authority to speak on behalf of the organisation came out swinging trying to knock the idea down, then I'd call them bigots.

Put it this way. The ColReps could have argued against colour preferences, against other non-merit preferences in general, against both, or against neither. From these options, they chose to stage a stunt protesting against one specific form of preference.

From this, I deduce that their issue isn't with non-merit preferences but specifically with racial preferences as a subset of non-merit preferences. For their opposition to be credible, they would have to be generally known for activism against racism. As it is, it seems that they are less upset by racism in the abstract than they are by the perceived discrimination "against," broadly, established privilege.

I agree that the issue is ambiguous, because there is not a precise correlation between privilege and whiteness any more than there is between poverty and blackness. This is obviously the main source of anti-AA entiment among poorer whites. AA really is discrimination against them, in favour of blacks. There is also an entrenched discrimination in favour of the wealthy, powerful, and connected, which is generally accepted, and not viewed by poor whites as constituting the threat to them that AA does - principally because the wealthy are, by definition, comparatively few.

That said, though AA is a blunt and flawed instrument, it seems the only alternative to the creation of a permanent colour underclass. But I disagree that motivated, talented whites are being kept down. I'm from a poor, rural part of Canada, and I'm now doing an Ivy grad degree. And poor whites suffer much less from AA than poor blacks would suffer without it.

So, arguing against AA without proposing an alternative is arguing for the return of systemic discrimination in favour of whites who, taken as a whole, are privileged in comparison to blacks. It's proposing a return to the early '60s, really. As it is, black people don't have an easy time getting to college, so eliminating AA would just ensure that fewer and fewer went.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Agree with your post in it's entirety (none / 0) (#403)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:49:49 PM EST

See other comments in this thread for my take on a solution.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
A point of logic. (none / 0) (#554)
by Estanislao Martínez on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 05:43:31 AM EST

Since you are trying to wear the mantle of logic here.

Is affirmative action (ie discrimination on the basis of race) right, or is it wrong? It really is a very simple question.

You are pushing this question as if the proposition behind it were an atomic one, in the sense of Wittgenstein's Tractatus: logically independent from every other proposition. But Elenchos et al's counters are based precisely on rejecting that it is an atomic proposition.

Therefore, you are guilty of what is of late my favorite pet fallacy: assuming the conclusion.

Not that I approve for a second your way of framing the whole issue, as if we were trying to establish impersonal facts about whether affirmative action is wrong, and the interests of the players involved were thus off limits.

--em
[ Parent ]

Out of idol curiosity (none / 0) (#245)
by godix on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:48:51 AM EST

A blanket condemnation of College Republicans isn't going to make me lose any sleep. They deserve it.

What would your reaction be if you heard someone say this exact same sentance but replaced 'College Republicans' with 'liberals', 'blacks', 'french', or any other group except white (assuming you take a broad definition of white) republicans? I guess that's one thing K5 is for, whenever I start hoping humanity can move beyond the stupid petty wholesale judgements by idiots that caused racism to begin with some moron with shit for brains and a chip on his shoulder comes along and proves people are still nothing more than judgemental assholes full of sound and fury about how demonic anyone but their favored group is. If you truely want to do something about racism why don't you start by quit practicing the very thing that caused it?

Bah, why do I bother? Go ahead, label me a republican racist nazi intent on destroying society just because I disagree with you, I know you want to. In turn I'll throw you in the one group I hold a blanket disgust for, hypocrites so fucking stupid they can't even comprehend why everyone with a working brain thinks they're hypocrites.

It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
- Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]

Okay, okay, I feel sorry for you. (none / 1) (#247)
by elenchos on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:21:31 AM EST

My god. Listen to yourself. Acting like being a College Republican makes you a victim. Yeah, those bitter College Republicans, and all the oppression they have had to overcome. I bet you bring tears to a lot of eyes when you tell your story.

Hang in there, man. I have a dream...

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

soulless (none / 0) (#257)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:47:34 AM EST

In one fell swoop you deny the humanity of a fellow human being.  Such thinking is exactly what was responsible for slavery, the holocaust and probably just about any other genocidal incident in history.  They are all tied together by the denial of another person or group's humanity and the reality of their life and experience.

There are these things called compassion and empathy, and they're useful to employ sometimes...

Oh, by the way, full disclosure of vested interests and all: I'm a young adult white male who doesn't live in the North America and cannot comprehend the bizarre partisan mindset of what appears to be your entire country; as if the entire world falls easily into one of either two lines of thinking.  Bizarre.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

That's nice (none / 0) (#303)
by godix on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:37:57 PM EST

I know that you can't comprehend the differences between racism/classism/whateverism and victimhood but please don't assume I'm as stupid as you have proven yourself to be.  

Since you obviously don't get it yet, let me try using simpler words:
Hating people because of their group bad. Viewing people as individuals good. Has nothing to do with victimhood. Not nice to do bad. Bad people are racist. Or classist. Or sexist. Or whateverist. Only stupid bastards be bad. World don't need another pinhead asshole, already have enough. Be good elenchos, be good.

It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
- Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]

not all groups are equal (none / 1) (#328)
by crayz on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:18:16 PM EST

If I join the KKK because I believe they have a good states rights agenda, are you going to withhold judgement?

There's nothing wrong with criticizing people based on the groups they belong to, as long as those groups were self-chosen.

A group like "black" or "green eyed" presumably can't tell you much about a person, because the factors that led to them belonging to that group(having genes that specified black skin or green eyes) are likely unrelated to anything someone could be legitimately judged on.

A group like "Republican," "Catholic," "ACLU," "David Duke voter," "Nader supporter" are different. These are groups that the individual in question decided to become a member of. So let's say we learn that Ralph Nader rapes little boys and wants to kill everyone on the planet with smallpox. And I donate some money to him and vote for him this election cycle. If someone tries to criticize me for this, I can't simply say "Hold it! This is not fair at all. I am simply a member of the group 'Nader supporters' and my membership in this group cannot be used to level criticism again me as an individual"

The obvious idiocy of this stance is that my "group membership" occurs only through individual action. So to say that I cannot as an individual be criticized for such things is simply nonsensical.

Now, in a case such as this, would I condemn all College Republicans? No. A College Republicans group with no affiliation to this campus's organization has little relation to the incident. If dozens of these embarassing travesties occur in CR groups across the country, then the case might be stronger that anyone CR group not wishing to be affiliated with this nonsense ought to change their name.

On the other hand, people who are members of this specific CR group, I damn well will criticize. If any group I was a member of pulled a stunt like this, I would exit post-haste. Anyone who does not is implicitly approving, or at least not disapproving, of this sort of behavior.

[ Parent ]

Did you read the thread? (none / 0) (#329)
by godix on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:40:34 PM EST

Elenchos said "A blanket condemnation of College Republicans isn't going to make me lose any sleep. They deserve it." This is far different than your saying you condem this specific branch of College Republicans. You really need to go re-read the thread, I doubt elenchos statements are anything you want to defend.

Regardless of that, do you know who John Rabe is? The man was a hero who did his best to stand against atrocities of war. The man was also a diehead nazi. Every group, no matter how evil it is, has some in it who are good. Saying an entire group of people are bad/evil/theives/whatever is wrong, both factually and morally.

Incidently, I notice you threw Catholic into your list of self choosen groups it's alright to hate. When exactly did you decide that being a religious bigot was perfectly ok? Is every religion subject to this or just catholics, IE would you defend me if I said all Jews were penny pinching thieves?

It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
- Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]

actually... (none / 1) (#536)
by crayz on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 09:47:05 PM EST

I had read about Rabe, from the Chang's book referenced in the article. One question is whether Rabe understood what the Nazi's were doing. I would still give him bad marks for belonging if he did.

As to religious condemnations, it depends what you mean. If you are a Catholic during the Inquisition and know about it and remain a Catholic, then yes that is a problem. As to saying the same about Jews, yes I would, but only if they are religious Jews. You can be Jewish ethnically without being Jewish religiously, and I would not criticize someone based on their ethnic group.

[ Parent ]

How do you know? (none / 0) (#345)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:29:30 PM EST

How do you know that these guys are in favor of legacy admissions?

Seriously, do you actualy know what these guys stance on the issue or are you just making an assumption?

If it's an assumption that you are making then it speaks volumes more about your own hypocracy then thiers.


[ Parent ]

You couldn't find a link either, I take it? (none / 0) (#362)
by elenchos on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:25:44 PM EST

Sure, maybe they actually oppose all forms of special favors. It's just that we only hear about it when they oppose special favors for non-whites.

Let me know if you come up with anything. Currently I have assigned two of my interns to track down any evidence of the College Republican's opposition to the various fringe benefits attached to being white, wealthy and well-connected. They haven't reported back yet, but who knows? Maybe it's just a very well-kept secret.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

30 seconds of fame (none / 0) (#364)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 06:11:55 PM EST

Perhaps the fact that this one short blurb represents the totality of publicity that this particular group will get in it's entire existance might have something to do with that?

Seriously, do you think that in order to legitimately take issue with 1 particular subset of 1 particular problem that you have to take issue with every other problem in existance?

I can't object to my neighbor dumping garbage on my lawn without in the same breath addressing global warming, fossil fuel dependence, ANWAR and biodiversity?

[ Parent ]

Gee, no. That would be stupid, wouldn't it? (none / 0) (#367)
by elenchos on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 06:51:16 PM EST

So stupid that it almost makes one suspect it's being used as a straw man. Please stop wasting everyone's time.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

Bob Dole a secret? (none / 0) (#399)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:40:48 PM EST

You must consider Bob Dole and Ward Connerly secrets then?

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/oldboys25.html

http://www.cornellreview.org/viewart.cgi?num=48

[ Parent ]

Bob Dole is a College Republican? (none / 0) (#411)
by elenchos on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:16:32 PM EST

It it 1990 or 2004?

Anyway, that's great, and we can all thank Bob Dole. Bob must be the one whose job is to handle the overall fairness question, and he finished that all up fourteen years ago. That just leaves the task of attacking anything that benefits minorities, which our friends in College Republicans are more than suited for.

Adequacy.org
[ Parent ]

fair enough (1.77 / 9) (#158)
by trav on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:17:21 PM EST

I'm ok with Affirmative Action. However, as we know that minorities are less intelligent than whites, I go out of my way to NOT hire or associate with minorities whenever possible. It's just common sense after all.

Someday AA will pay off and minorities will be smart enough to compete with whites intellectually. When that day comes (and AA goes away) I'll feel free to hire and associate with them!

ahh... poster was being sarcastic people. (none / 0) (#239)
by p2sam on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:04:10 AM EST

ahh... poster was being sarcastic people... sheesh...

[ Parent ]
Why is it OK to be proud if you are a minority ... (2.83 / 6) (#160)
by Exo on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:29:43 PM EST

but not if you are white?

Hmmmmm...

'cos white ain't a minority? (none / 1) (#195)
by JayGarner on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:34:25 PM EST

Note that it is (kind of) cool to be proud if yr Irish. Also Lithuanian, I think Lithuanian is pretty cool.

[ Parent ]
Taking a global perspective... (none / 1) (#267)
by limbic on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:36:20 AM EST

...whites are THE gobal minority.

[ Parent ]
gonna be a white minority (none / 2) (#407)
by JayGarner on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:03:43 PM EST

We're gonna be a white minority We won't listen to the majority We're gonna feel inferiority We're gonna be white minority White pride You're an American I'm gonna hide Anywhere I can Gonna be a white minority We don't believe there's a possibility Well you just wait and see We're gonna be white minority White pride You're an American White pride Anywhere I can? Gonna be a white minority There's gonna be large cavity Within my new territory We're all gonna die.

[ Parent ]
White may not be a minority, but (none / 1) (#444)
by fae on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 02:15:36 AM EST

If you break Whites up into the various origins, everyone's a minority. French, German, English, Spanish, etc. and all the various combinations.

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
[ Parent ]
Why is everyone so fucking stupid? (none / 2) (#211)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:30:29 PM EST

I'm sorry, but being proud of how much (or how little) pigment you have in your skin is just plain fucked up. Be proud of something you did, something you've achieved. Be proud of the same things if your son or daughter did it. If your brother or sister did it. Or even if mom or dad did it...

But to be proud that you're an "african-american" or a "caucasian" is so ludicrous I don't know how to respond that I don't sound like a troll. It's horribly fucking dumb.

There is nothing special in your "race", nor is there anything to be ashamed of. Hell, human beings have pigments in their eyes and hair, too, and no one thinks that one color of those is more important than the other. Stop acting like some little baboon that is only social with its own tribe (that goes for both blacks and whites, asians too for that matter).

Speaking of which, how is it that asians have managed to sidestep this, for lack of a better word, debate?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

I agree. (none / 0) (#284)
by Exo on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:01:49 AM EST

I was just raising a logical problem with the whole debate.

I am proud of my family and ancestors, and very rarely myself, but that's about it. :)

Oh, I guess I'm proud of the strong European science tradition, which is more or less white, but I have to acknowledge the Arabic contribution to math and the horrible dark ages and religious suppression of the science done by the Europeans. So all in all, we came out OK, but it was a long two milennia. :/

[ Parent ]
i'm proud to b an american (none / 2) (#408)
by JayGarner on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:07:02 PM EST

It's the time to show the world were strong We won't be terrorized Evil's not allowed to win When you've got heaven on your side It's for the ones we've lost That we stand up strong today Cause the flag still stands for freedom and they won't take that away And we're standing strong as americans Where we at least we know we're free And we won't forget the ones who died on that Tuesday morning And we're going to stand up and see it through and defend her still today Cause we'll never fall when we all stand GOD BLESS THE USA And we're standing strong as americans where we at least we know we're free And we won't forget the ones who died on that Tuesday morning And we're going to stand up and see it through and defend her still today Cause we'll never fall when we all stand GOD BLESS THE USA

[ Parent ]
Don't be so quick to dismiss (3.00 / 9) (#162)
by devon on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:43:21 PM EST

While what the Young Republicans are doing here is clearly a stunt, it shouldn't be dismissed. It upset the poster, and probably many other people. I think it's appropriate to ask why someone felt the need to do this, and to ask why others have reacted the way they have. Those are both questions worth answering, although I won't attept to answer them here. Stunts like this can spark discussion, if you'll let them. I think this quote is apropos:
My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
Martin Luther King Jr. Letter from Birmingham Jail

--
Call yourself a computer professional? Congratulations. You are responsible for the imminent collapse of civilization.
There is an easy answer to the why (none / 1) (#471)
by SlashDread on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:20:21 PM EST

They are fucking racist pigs, thats why.

If you get it in your fucking brain to call attention to a perceived unfairnessy on part of a very few whities that may or may not be sometimes somewhere unjustly treaded due to affermitive action, you are a racist pig.

If you are not a racist pig here is a few, just a few bigger issues to worry about:
- The color of your prison populous.
- The obsessive need to write everyones race down. Even for a bloody bank account.
- Why the fuck you voted a moron as prez.
- Why noone says fuck on tv.

things like that

[ Parent ]

why did this crap get voted up? (2.64 / 14) (#164)
by crazycanuck on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 06:48:46 PM EST

The "white scholarship" is clearly copying and mocking the hundreds of your-favorite-minority-only scholarships already available.

The 250$ "scholarship" hardly qualifies as some neo-nazi funding program.

I'm a liberal and have absolutely no respect for conservatives, but I agree with them 100% on this matter: affirmative action is racial discrimination.
What kind of message are you giving people when discriminating against some people is wrong, while discriminating against some other people is OK?

Voted up because it's brilliant (none / 2) (#168)
by duncan bayne on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 07:18:16 PM EST

This kind of 'stunt' highlights the immorality of *all* racial discrimination, regardless of the intent.

[ Parent ]
you misunderstood me (none / 2) (#169)
by crazycanuck on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 07:28:27 PM EST

by "this crap" I mean "this shitty and highly inaccurate article" not the political stunt by the Young Conservatives.

Yes, I agree the stunt is good, but I think the article misses the point entirely.
Choice quote: "This white-pride scholarship, though, is more loathsome than any other poorly conceived Young Republican scheme"

[ Parent ]

Highly inaccurate? (none / 1) (#171)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 07:47:03 PM EST

How?

[ Parent ]
Perhaps he should have said 'wrong-headed' (none / 1) (#177)
by esrever on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:19:51 PM EST

i.e., confused.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
I would say 'righteous' (none / 0) (#208)
by kmcrober on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:21:50 PM EST

i.e., virtuous.

[ Parent ]
Just a bonus (none / 0) (#391)
by duncan bayne on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:26:06 PM EST

So we get to laugh at the OP as well.  Bonus! :-)

[ Parent ]
Why? (2.50 / 4) (#172)
by virtualjay222 on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 07:49:51 PM EST

I'm not entirely sure why we need affermative action to begin with. The only arguements that I'm really aware of are (1) to make up for the (mis)treatment of minorities over the years or (2) to promote diversity.

In response to the former, I'm not entirely sure that assisting kids get into college at the expence of a more qualified individual makes up for past injustices. How does the old adage go? Two wrongs don't make a right - something like that?

As far as diversity goes, my feeling is that affermative action would only treat the symtoms of a larger problem, that being the social inequity and resulting economic inequity in our culture. That, however, is a rather broad goal. Until then, we need a test - some way to determine what levels of diversity are "acceptable." At this point, quotas have been ruled out, so what's left?

Certainly affermative action programs have done at least as much good as harm, but unless the whole program is abandoned, we will have to sit through these sophomoric displays of displeasure. So the question is, why? Why do we still need these programs?

---

I'm not in denial, I'm just selective about the reality I choose to accept.

-Calvin and Hobbes


Affirmative action is misplaced... (none / 1) (#182)
by mikelist on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:35:16 PM EST

I always thought that minority scholarships were for people of need. There are many minority students who do not need this help; by accepting these scholarships they are not only displacing white candidates, they are holding back the people who need the help most, genuinely disadvantaged (minority) students. OTOH, if you know anyone who would refuse to hire on the basis of race, you can be certain that affirmative action (of some sort) is necessary.

[ Parent ]
Promoting Diversity (none / 1) (#221)
by blakdogg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:21:00 PM EST

There is a pragmatic reason for promoting diversity, a need to have certain skills within 'your' community. A community needs to have access to medical facilities, so it will need doctors. This is one of the reasons communities sponsor educational institutions, and give preferences to local students.

Since communities in the US can be defined along ethnic or racial lines, it makes sense to be concerned about the concentration of certain skills within ethnic groups. This changes the nature of the issue, it is no longer a case of an 'unqualified' student gaining access to a school and rather the ability to access qualified doctors, teachers or lawyers.

This is just one rational for implementing diversity programs.  
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]

A condradiction (none / 0) (#286)
by virtualjay222 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:05:03 AM EST

Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by community. At first, it seems as if you define it along geographical lines ("local students"), and then shift over to ethnic ones. If you're going with geographical, I agree - if there is a university in the area, people should be given the opportunity to attend. However, when there are three universities within that sphere, each of which offers similar programs, why should skin color affect which one you are "qualified" for?

I'm not complaining about financial aid and things of that nature, which are often funded by private institutions, I'm talking about the admissions process. Do you really want to have a doctor operating on you if the only reason they made it into med school was because they're a minority?!

---

I'm not in denial, I'm just selective about the reality I choose to accept.

-Calvin and Hobbes


[ Parent ]

I don't see the confusion (none / 0) (#310)
by blakdogg on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:17:14 PM EST

In the US, most communities can be defined along  ethnic lines. And people seem to be more willing to move geographically, than to move into a community with a different ethnic makeup. So failing to consider ethnicity, sex and other issues could lead to a situation where some communities are unable to access the resource that they pay for. In short I think the mandate of public schools, should include ensuring all the communities that support the are able to utilise the schools' resources (the graduates). And diversity programs help to make that possible.

Most medical school programs are forced to choose from a number of qualified persons. So the issue is no longer if the person is capable, but rather if he/she is better than their competition. Also medical schools are not in the habit of graduating substandard doctors, and this is definitely not the case at the schools that are generally at the centre of these debates. So I have no problem with a doctor who benefitted from preferential treatment during the admissions process. I do not think it is an indicator of the individual's capabilities.

Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]

Okay - I see the problem (none / 0) (#331)
by virtualjay222 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:42:09 PM EST

You're correct in saying that most geographically defined areas are ethnically segregated, and it's very rarely a deliberate thing. It's probably also fair to say that most of the lower class communities are composed of minorities. If, however, the reason for the ghettoization of these areas is economic, the majority of students who become doctors are unlikely to return to such poor conditions, preferring instead their posh suburban McMansions. If you want more minority doctors, it must then be at the expence of white doctors.

I also agree that preferential treatment in admissions is probably not a solid indicator of overall capability. My complaint is that, in a society so consumed by astetics, where a Harvard degree somehow goes farther then that of a state school, the color of your skin should have no bearing, positively or negatively, on your right to attend.

In order to preserve this neutrality, however, you must devise a test. What percentage of minority enrollment would be acceptable verses discrimination.

---

I'm not in denial, I'm just selective about the reality I choose to accept.

-Calvin and Hobbes


[ Parent ]

Here's One (none / 0) (#501)
by czolgosz on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 07:40:30 PM EST

I'm not entirely sure why we need affermative action to begin with. The only arguements that I'm really aware of are (1) to make up for the (mis)treatment of minorities over the years or (2) to promote diversity.
Well, how about (3) Because the system is still rigged?

I'm an Anglo from an impoverished blue-collar background. Because I was academically ambitious, I got lots of help in school. Equally talented Latinos and blacks at the schools I attended were shunted into vocational-training classes.

And it still goes on. My wife's a member of a minority that still gets a lot of abuse (she's Arab). I've seen it used against our kids. We confront it when it's flagrant, but it's insidious and pervasive. If African-Americans have to put up with that kind of continual low-level crap (which occasionally flares up into an incident), that alone will knock a few points off the average SAT score. And from what I've seen, blacks get even more of that BS than my wife's people.

I don't like some of the anomalies that come with AA (for example, some middle-class people who don't need it get a free ride), but until there's even a crude approximation of a level playing field, it's still necessary.

Anyway, there's already a massive AA program for whites, of the type that need it least: it's called legacy admission.


Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
[ Parent ]
How is this unfair? (2.88 / 18) (#175)
by kaboom108 on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:10:36 PM EST

I'm a white male who started college this fall. I have a 1450 SAT score and a mediocre GPA. I went to (by choice) a ~95% african-american high school. My senior year I was constantly barraged with scholarship "opportunities". The vast majority of these, after some scrutiny, turned out to be only for minorities. The few open to anyone scholarships of any reasonable size had requirements much, much higher then the minority scholarships. It's a fact of life. I was eventually able to get some assistance and some subsidized federal loans, or I wouldn't be able to be in school now. I'm not complaining, it's their money, and their right to say "you meet our requirements, but your white so you aren't eligible" if they want to. But that means I should be able to start my own scholarship and say "non-whites need not apply". Both are equally racist by definition, they are applying different standards and treatment based on race. If you treat people differently based on their race, you are being racist. You can justify it however you please, but don't try to pretend that your morally superior. I for one am sick and tired of it being assumed I'm racist juct because I'm white. Affirmative action and other race base programs made sense when there was a definite, imperical observable institutional racial bias. Although the University system may not have the exact same distribution as the general population, affirmative action aside, different races have an equal opporutnity of being accepted based on their own personal merits. Now you can argue minorities aren't given the same opportunities to achieve said personal merit, because of economic and cultural differences, and you might be right. I don't see how constantly reinforcing racial inequality with racist policies can ever hope to achieve true equality. You just get a situation where everyone wants all races to be "equal" but secretly wants their race to be more "equal" then anyone else. I have seen far more strife caused be these policies then they could ever hope to eradicate. Instead treat people equally, and things should even out by themselves.

So true. (none / 1) (#176)
by esrever on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:17:29 PM EST

What the original article has failed to address is the fact that this is in reality an 'affirmative action' programme (They're going out to help one particular group).  Just not in the spirit of what is usually thought of as an 'affirmitive action' programme.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
There's a word for people with a 1450 SAT (1.10 / 10) (#201)
by ninja rmg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:05:12 PM EST

And mediocre grades: Useless.

Guess what: Grades are important, especially with a score like that. When you break 1500, we'll talk.



[ Parent ]

There's another word (none / 2) (#206)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:16:51 PM EST

For a guy with below 1450 SAT.

"President."

It's true.

SAT isn't that important, really.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

Oh really? (none / 0) (#212)
by ninja rmg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:31:47 PM EST

How about grades? What do you think of those?



[ Parent ]
It depends (none / 0) (#214)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:48:12 PM EST

If you want to go to college for like science or engineering you need a good SAT and a good grades, but if you want to go for like arts or music you ought to be good at arts or music.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

problem is (none / 0) (#281)
by Battle Troll on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 10:59:49 AM EST

but if you want to go for like arts or music you ought to be good at arts or music.

If all you're good at is music, you won't hack it in the professional world. I know this guy who went to Curtis for violin. That's, like, better than going to JH for med. Curtis takes about two fiddlers a year, at full ride, and profs will take a pay cut to work there because it's resume gold.

Anyway, he now makes $18,000 a year and plays 2nd violin in a fourth-rate quartet in a backwater in Canada. He couldn't cope with his life and all his talent went nowhere. Now, I don't even have 1/10th of his talent, but I have a much better life, make more money, and today I play better.

Long story short, even w/r/t music school, SATs and grades are non-negligible.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Even breaking 1500 is no biggie. (none / 1) (#215)
by gzt on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:05:42 PM EST

Dime a dozen.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, true enough, (none / 1) (#217)
by ninja rmg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:09:11 PM EST

Which is why I find the poster's story so unimpressive.



[ Parent ]
good sheep (none / 1) (#268)
by 49399 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:26:30 AM EST

runs after grades

[ Parent ]
That's rich. (none / 0) (#275)
by ninja rmg on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 10:45:08 AM EST

No, I just get grades naturally, despite my extremely cavalier attitude toward academics (for example, I always write my papers the morning they are due, regardless of how long they must be -- I always get an A).

Someone who can't keep decent grades is either lazy or stupid. Either way, they are -- survery says -- useless.



[ Parent ]

lol (none / 0) (#306)
by markfive on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:49:48 PM EST

Yuo are teh awsum!!11!

[ Parent ]
hmm (none / 1) (#382)
by Battle Troll on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:54:04 PM EST

(for example, I always write my papers the morning they are due, regardless of how long they must be -- I always get an A)

Two words: grade inflation. (Unless you're leaving out the part of writing a paper where you plow through thousands of pages of research.) I mean, I'm sure you can come up with a cogent argument and articulate it in a morning, but I'm not sure that you can become familiar with, say, recent research in a field that's not your specialty in journals you don't ordinarily read.

The last paper I gave, which took up 20 minutes of my departmental seminar, required me to read thirteen chapters in five books and six articles, two in French. I mean, if I hadn't done that reading, I would have been rehashing arguments from 1970 that had already been authoritatively settled, rather than exploring the current research direction.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

A couple of things: (none / 0) (#387)
by ninja rmg on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:11:35 PM EST

  1. I read very quickly and I have an unusual memory for what has transpired in class discussions. This has served me well in history, philosophy, and literature courses.
  2. Undergraduates are rarely required to write papers that cover recent research. In the case of mathematics students, we are never required to write such papers at all, as it would be completely unreasonable. One cannot just jump into an unfamiliar journal of mathematics as a mere undergraduate.




[ Parent ]
you're making my case for me (none / 0) (#394)
by Battle Troll on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:30:50 PM EST

I can understand pulling an occasional undemanding essay out of the old correbungus. On the other hand, I recall reading a dozen books for one undergraduate term paper at my cow college (that was a very unusual effort, though) and plowing through a lot of Congressional Record for my American Gov't class at Small Liberal Arts School (tm).

I read very quickly and I have an unusual memory for what has transpired in class discussions.

I assumed as much, but if that's all it takes to get an 'A,' that's a cheap-ass 'A' indeed. Some three-dollar essay, fine, but don't you ever have anything more substantial to write?

Undergraduates are rarely required to write papers that cover recent research.

I do realize that you're in grad school; still, it's not a matter of being 'required,' it's a matter of having to be familiar with more sources than some random book and what the prof said in class. If I hadn't hit the books for that gov't paper (on which I got a B+, by the way) I would never have had anything nontrivial to write about.

One cannot just jump into an unfamiliar journal of mathematics as a mere undergraduate.

I'll give you that, but as you've said, you do occasionally take classes outside your major.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Not quite, (none / 0) (#400)
by ninja rmg on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:40:56 PM EST

I am not a grad student, just a very advanced undergraduate.

I tend to stay away from courses with intense writing requirements simply because I'm too lazy for them. While you may be right about the cheapness of said As, I do better than the majority of others with virtually no effort, which was the whole point. Faced with substantial paper, I occasionally have to relax my morning paper rule, but that's not too common.



[ Parent ]

which is /my/ point (none / 0) (#404)
by Battle Troll on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:51:35 PM EST

While you may be right about the cheapness of said As, I do better than the majority of others with virtually no effort, which was the whole point.

That's the meaning of 'grade inflation.' In my father's day, a 65% was average. At my old cow college, the averages are still ca. 65-68%; more than 40% of students fail or drop Intro Calc. It ought to be damn difficult to get an A, no matter how smart you are. I mean, now I'm at possibly the leading school in the world for my field; I only gave 4 As to my class of 18 freshmen last term, and they're far and away the most talented undergrads I've ever dealt with. Even the kids who placed out of the intro course have to work for their As in the honours course they get bumped into, and the kids who placed out are so gifted that it sickens me.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

The grade inflation boogey man. (none / 0) (#410)
by ninja rmg on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:12:22 PM EST

Grades are silly anyway. They only provide motivation to keep kids from completely shirking through their classes. I've had classes that were truly difficult and I've never found them more valuable than less difficult ones. I'd be interested to know why you think it makes sense to give out Bs and Cs to "the most talented undergrads [you've] ever seen."

Anyway, I've been through the 65% average bullshit and I've always been in the 85-95% anyway. Freshman advanced physics, multivariable calculus, etc. That sort of thing does not make sense in advanced subjects though.



[ Parent ]

quality of work (none / 0) (#413)
by Battle Troll on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:27:32 PM EST

I'd be interested to know why you think it makes sense to give out Bs and Cs to "the most talented undergrads [you've] ever seen."

Talent isn't the same thing as either comprehension or ability. The kids who got As did a much better job with the material than the kids who got Cs. The kids who got As are now fluent in four clefs with fixed-do solfege, can sight-sing lots of stuff, are preparing to do score reading, and can transcribe anything that doesn't modulate. The kids who got Cs can't make their skills work for themselves in the same way. Period.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

That's not the usual situation. (none / 0) (#415)
by ninja rmg on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:32:42 PM EST

Music is one thing, but most academics aren't so much about skills as knowledge.



[ Parent ]
I disagree (none / 0) (#416)
by Battle Troll on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:35:06 PM EST

Information isn't the same thing as knowledge.

In my opinion, if all you're doing is regurgitating light readings and what the prof said in lecture, that's not exceptional work and thus not 'A' quality.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

I would agree, (none / 0) (#418)
by ninja rmg on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:41:22 PM EST

But no one is talking about that. That is only your (uncharitable) reading of the situation.

And I disagree -- to me, information and knowledge are the same things. If there is some intermediate conversion process, I am unaware of it.



[ Parent ]

who's uncharitable? (none / 0) (#457)
by Battle Troll on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 09:25:55 AM EST

You said yourself that the key to 'just-in-time' As is being able to read quickly and to retain classroom discussions. I still haven't heard you explain why such light preparation ought usually to warrant an A, shallow as it must necessarily be.

To me, information and knowledge are the same things...

The text of Bacchae is information. Studying it generates knowledge. In my experience, a prof gives you information, but deriving knowledge from it is your job.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Simply put, (none / 0) (#468)
by ninja rmg on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 12:59:16 PM EST

I come up with high quality critical papers very quickly using the relevant texts, the discussion of the texts, and my own background and thoughts. You have imposed a model on the situation (that of an average student doing writing a research paper) that does not apply.

While I'll agree that the physical text of Bacchae is information, it is obvious that you could not have meant information in that sense in the previous post (if you had, it would have been meaningless in the context). Upon reading the text (and perhaps I need some hypothesis about actually remembering it, but I'll leave the details to you), it becomes knowledge. If you're saying that knowledge requires interpretation, fine, but I find that inventing interpretations on the fly works perfectly well except with the most dense pieces, which require extra thought. Alternatively, perhaps what I am saying is that this "deriving knowledge" step of yours does not seem naturally seperate from reading except in extraordinary situations.

Anyway, this is all very boring and very public. I think I've had enough.



[ Parent ]

don't get your knickers in a twist, now / PBPR (none / 0) (#478)
by Battle Troll on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 02:01:00 PM EST

I come up with high quality critical papers very quickly using the relevant texts, the discussion of the texts, and my own background and thoughts.

I agree with you w/r/t paper quality, because I've been in the same boat and done the same thing. I generally got As on the assignments I blew off as an undergrad. (In a weird way, I generally did worse on the papers into which I put some effort. If you try to formulate an informed opinion on an academic subject as an undergrad, which is almost impossible anyway, it will either a) annoy the professor ["Presumptuous little shit, I'll give him a C- to teach him to know his place;"] b) fail to be informed by years of work in the field and in consequence be a malformed opinion; or c) contradict what the professor said in class, which is of necessity dumbed down and general.)

The difference is that I'm willing to admit that there's inflation when talented students can just pull work out of their asses. Now, I may never have been in your league as a math prodigy, but I wasn't all that bad, and I was a first-class, bona fide prodigy in other subjects. When I was 16, my philosophy prof offered to supervise my first undergrad term paper (that's the one for which I read all the books) for publication, and I gave it at the departmental grad seminar. I skipped two consecutive months of my English class and scored a high A on the final (making for a B in the class due to the essay that I never bothered to write.) I know all about cramming for three hours and acing a final, and I know all about writing a paper in two hours and getting an A.

And, in my opinion, such an A must be not just inflated but inflationary, because it reflects exceptional capacities rather than exceptional ability. There exists a case where it doesn't, where the paper is just to test comprehension; but if all your papers are like that in humanities subjects, I just can't understand how the material can be called the least bit challenging. Either way, the A is inflated.

Anyway, this is all very boring and very public. I think I've had enough.

Aw, diddums, maybe you shouldn't say that you get uninflated As for everything you cobble together the morning of then. Can't you see that the very statement itself serves to denigrate those As?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

But that's just it! (none / 1) (#483)
by ninja rmg on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 03:37:25 PM EST

My work is a credit to the grade! The As denigrate the work, not the other way around!



[ Parent ]
+1 FP (none / 0) (#495)
by Battle Troll on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 06:43:57 PM EST

/nt
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
I'm thinkin' section (none / 0) (#496)
by imrdkl on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 07:00:09 PM EST

It could use more meat.

[ Parent ]
no, no (none / 2) (#498)
by Battle Troll on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 07:14:32 PM EST

It deserves an A.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
humbug (none / 0) (#479)
by Battle Troll on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 02:43:40 PM EST

While I'll agree that the physical text of Bacchae is information, it is obvious that you could not have meant information in that sense in the previous post (if you had, it would have been meaningless in the context).

To chop sematics as you are, the physical text is a representation of information. The point of the post in question is that the text of Bacchae, however represented, is information, but to understand it is possess knowledge. So, it seems to me that there's a point in distinguishing between being taught 'information' and being provoked into developing 'knowledge.'
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

agreed: grades are useless (none / 0) (#445)
by 49399 on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 04:15:16 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Here, I have a ball. (none / 1) (#456)
by ninja rmg on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 09:12:42 AM EST

Perhaps you'd like to bounce it.



[ Parent ]
but potential employers won't think you gangsta (none / 1) (#229)
by auraslip on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:32:24 AM EST

they have to work harder, so should you.
___-___
[ Parent ]
All is not perfect (none / 2) (#237)
by dachshund on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:50:59 AM EST

Affirmative action and other race base programs made sense when there was a definite, imperical observable institutional racial bias

I think one look at the distribution of school funds to African Americans, or the breakdown of test scores, poverty levels, etc. would satisfy that requirement.

Sure there are poor white people who struggle with lousy circumstances, and fortunate African Americans who have no need for special breaks. But call it empirical, observable whatever you want-- a random distribution of African Americans will almost always tend to be noticeably different in the above metrics than a similar distribution of caucasians.

There are certainly other ethnic groups for which this would be the case. But there's good reason to believe American legal policy is responsible for many disadvantages facing African Americans. If it wasn't for slavery, Jim Crow, and the residual effects of 150 years of discrimination (which was only formally eased out of our legal system 35 years ago), this might not be a problem.

Bottom line: America did a great deal of damage to this community. Even if we're finally treating African Americans in a perfectly even-handed manner today (and I don't think we can make that claim yet), we certainly owe that community some sort of effort to repair the damage. Affirmative Action might be a crude way to do it-- personally I'd like to see real desegregation and better school funding-- but it's a way, and we have an obligation to do something.

[ Parent ]

Distribution of school funds... (none / 1) (#244)
by skeptic on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:28:37 AM EST

I think one look at the distribution of school funds to African Americans, or the breakdown of test scores, poverty levels, etc. would satisfy that requirement.

Here in NJ, most "black" school districts spend more money per pupil than most "white" school districts. I just checked the Department of education web site. As an example, East Brunswick (a very good school district) spends $3k per student less than New Brunswick (a far worse mostly minority school district). Princeton spends $2k less per student than Trenton.

It's not about the funding, it's about the culture. And racist handouts aren't going to help change the culture.

[ Parent ]
You're Half Right... (none / 0) (#264)
by Juppon Gatana on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:06:04 AM EST

It's not about the funding, it's about the culture...

No, it's about both. Culture definitely has a huge influence on black achievement, but so does blacks' overall lower economic status. Here's my take on the "culture" issue.

- Juppon Gatana
能ある鷹は爪を隠す。
(Nou aru taka wa tsume wo kakusu.)
[ Parent ]
Washington DC spends 12k per student (none / 2) (#274)
by ProfessorBooty on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 10:30:55 AM EST

Culture is a big problem, and in some big cities, corruption is too. DC spends around 12k per student, but yet there aren't enough desks to go around and reading scores are horrible. That money has to be disapearing somewhere (like the recent creditcard scandal).

The mayor has pushed school vouchers as an alternative but with little success.

[ Parent ]

Depends on what you believe (none / 0) (#574)
by dachshund on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 03:09:59 PM EST

It's not about the funding, it's about the culture. And racist handouts aren't going to help change the culture.

And my point is that American legislative policy is directly responsible for many of the problems in the culture. Because this damage was caused by overt acts on the government's part, the nation has a moral obligation to try and repare the damage we caused.

Problem is, any direct attempt to change the culture would be far more difficult to implement than AA. Better yet, the very same people who oppose AA ostensibly for its being "ineffective" would scream bloody murder if we actually tried to implement an effective solution (because for most of them, screaming about thethe ineffectiveness of AA is really cover for saying "I don't think America owes African America a penny if it's going to come out of my pocket, and who cares if it's right or wrong.") Certainly it would require massive financial investment, and major changes in the Americans of all races live. It would probably piss off the African American community, because doing it right would require massive changes in peoples' lifestyles.

So AA is a terrible solution, but it happens to be the best one that we can reasonably undertake. The goal is to bootstrap a large class of better-educated, wealthier African Americans that will eventually be strong enough to attract the rest of the culture to emulate them. In other words, we're attempting to acheive something that might have happened naturally if America hadn't overtly oppressed African Americans for centuries. It's crude, and on an individual level it often seems unfair, but to say it's ineffective is unfair-- it will probably take many more years to acheive the desired results.

In the end, it comes down to two questions: a) do you believe America is responsible for many of the problems African Americans face today, and b) do you think we have an obligation to make reparation for our overt mistreatment of this group. I think the answer to both questions is Yes. And if you agree with me, you soon come to the conclusion that there is no "fair" way to do this, because someone will always see it as "special treatment" for another racial group-- no matter how richly deserved such reparation is.

[ Parent ]

sp (none / 0) (#575)
by dachshund on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 03:14:00 PM EST

I don't think America owes African America

That last line should have read "African Americans".

[ Parent ]

Only Whites Can Be Racist (none / 3) (#272)
by The Turd Report on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:31:35 AM EST

Plus, all whites are rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams and are privledged at birth. College isn't really just a big party for whites. Upon graduation, they all will get jobs at 'The Man, Inc.' because their dad's are all VPs at the company. Most will become junior associates in the 'Minority Oppression' department.

[ Parent ]
1450 SATs? (none / 1) (#277)
by Battle Troll on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 10:56:35 AM EST

Face it, white boy, it's cow college for you. I suggest that you major in textile technology, like Edwards.

Also, you might want to work up the old writing skills. If I was in college admissions, I would bounce you solely on the strength of that post no matter what your grades were.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Oh please! (none / 2) (#314)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:35:59 PM EST

A "cow school" like MIT perhaps (Average SAT 1466)

or

Columbia (1407), Bates (1338), Brandeis (1330), Brown (1390), Carnegie Mellon (1362), USNA - Annapolis (1313), USMA - West Point (1268), Reed (1371), Grinnell(1336), Dartmouth (1417) to name just a few. Most of the pretentious punks on this site should wish they did as well as this kid,

[ Parent ]

Wasn't the SAT recentered? (none / 0) (#318)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:49:28 PM EST

After my time, but I thought they recentered the scores again a little while back.  No?

[ Parent ]
Not sure.... (none / 0) (#321)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:00:44 PM EST

But those scores are current for this kids graduating class. I understand that they are actualy moving to an SAT II which has a 3rd section... but I'm not familiar with the details.

[ Parent ]
SAT II (none / 1) (#324)
by markfive on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:08:09 PM EST

There has been an SAT II for years. There are actually many tests that each focus on one particular subject matter.

SAT II

[ Parent ]

From a SAT tutor.. (none / 0) (#349)
by Woundweavr on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:54:21 PM EST

Yep they recentered them since more people were going to college. As these new students generally had lower abilities (say top half instead of 40% or some such), the scoring was changed in '93. Within the middle distributions (say 800-1200) is about a 100 point bump up. Its less when you get more than 2 std dev from the mean. The average is currently right around 1050.

However, the SAT is also about to be changed fundamentally, so scores are likely to again mean something different.

[ Parent ]

if you can afford to go already (none / 1) (#358)
by Battle Troll on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:08:40 PM EST

Maxed SATs aren't important. If you can't afford to go, and thus need a scholarship, they become very important. That's how the system works, and read the parent, prick.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
So when did this change? (3.00 / 4) (#469)
by SlashDread on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:06:56 PM EST

"was a definite, imperical observable institutional racial bias." I wholeheartly agree with your assesment, but for the word "was". I have visited the US (I am Dutch) once, in 1995 or so, but the first thing I noticed in the US were: - I had to fill in my race (How DO you spell caucasian?) on the visa applicant form. - All the aitport cleaners were black. - All the busdrivers were black. - In the hotel I needed to fill in my race again. Has all this changed? "/Dread"

[ Parent ]
Anti-racists are another sort of racist (2.40 / 10) (#179)
by Julian Morrison on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:32:36 PM EST

I often find that those who most volubly oppose a thing have a lot in common with their hated enemies. In this case, affirmative action makes no sense, nowadays, starting from any set of assumptions except "they aren't able to make it on their own, poor dears".

Start from the assumption they can make it, and affirmative action becomes both insulting, and damaging. Damaging by unfair association with incompetents, and damaging to the folks who could have become competent had they enrolled in a college whose teaching style matched their ability to learn.

Call it the KKK Scholarship and be done with it. (1.14 / 7) (#181)
by tthomas48 on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:34:49 PM EST

This reactionism that seems to couch itself in some sort of more poltically-correct than your political correctness should be pointed out for what it really is - organized racism. We all agree that making decisions on hiring or college admissions based upon the color of a person's skin is wrong. But affirmative action was setup precisely because this was happening. So now we have more organized groups trying to reinstate these "rights" that they feel have been taken away from their race. Which was the whole point of affirmative action. If there was ever a need for affirmative action, then there certainly still is, and if there was never a need then for some reason white people keep trying to provide justification for it.

While I'm not opposed to affirmative action .. (2.50 / 4) (#190)
by gbd on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 08:59:56 PM EST

.. I can see how those who are opposed to it would want to try to make a point about its perceived unfairness with a demonstration such as this. The problem is that these people seem to be taking a little bit too much, er, "pride" in their efforts. I mean, come on .. "Diversity is a disease?" "Black History Month is a ploy to promote socialism?" If these Republicans had simply offered a token "white scholarship" and left it at that, it would have been one thing. But with statements like these, they've crossed the line from political point-making into terroritory where they're trying to be intentionally spiteful. And for that reason, I don't feel very sorry for these folks and for the flak that they're getting over this.

--
Gunter glieben glauchen globen.
here here, 'diversity is a disease', wtf? (none / 1) (#236)
by benxor on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:48:48 AM EST

How can diversity be a disease? Oh yes, I suppose the fact that every system in any context requires diversity to remain dynamic and/or strong and/or survive would be, what, a great argument on why we shouldn't allow any of it?

Still I don't think the point of their ideas is that 'everyone should be the same' - probably some horeshit along the lines of - 'doesn't everyone get along better when they're with people like them? people were designed to be with others like them - to mix racesis to create chaos, blah blah'

While a convincing argument in the purely 'people who've never done Elementary Logic 110 will believe this' sense, I find it hard to support. What has created every dynamic system in history? What creates trade? What created America, for fuck's sake? Only white rich people being allowed in? Well, not for the first 300 years anyway...

--
all generalisations are false - including this one
[ Parent ]

Nice (none / 1) (#249)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:55:50 AM EST

You know, I seriously considered heading into Providence tomorrow to see this guy's speech.  The more I think about it, the more disturbed I am by the guest speaker, and the less I care about the scholarship.

The scholarship is a publicity stunt offered by morons.  It's a transparent gimmick that doesn't really persuade anyone, and makes them look like racists.

The speaker, though, actually has a hell of a platform.  He's speaking from Fox News and Limbaugh's show.  If his posters are really representative of his position...  Well, it's an ultra-radical stance that makes Ann Coulter look like Alan Dershowitz.  Is he being taken seriously?  Is he being misrepresented?  I'm curious.  I wonder if they webcast it.

[ Parent ]

I found a site.... (none / 1) (#295)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:51:25 AM EST

... That seems to represent the guys opinions.
(http://members.cox.net/nixatron/weblog/reginald.htm)

He seems pretty reasonable to me. Essentialy what I take away from his statements is the stance that while "diveristy" is all well and good it's far from the most important factor in society....and that too many important things are being trampled in a blind pursuit of "diveristy" at all costs.

He also states (quite astutely in IMO) that "diversity" is not neccesarly an appropriate goal in all situations. For instance, is "diveristy" in skating ability an appropriate goal in building a championship hockey team?
Should diversity of race even be an important factor in such a pursuit?

Tell me, if a planet killing asteroid were hurtling toward the earth and you had to put together a team of astrophysicists to construct a plan to stop it.... what would be more important to you, racial diversity or getting the most skilled astrophysicists even if that meant that over 95% of the team would be asian?


[ Parent ]

Terrible analogies (none / 1) (#308)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:08:43 PM EST

If he's got an actual point to make, that makes the big "Diversity is a Disease" posters look like a crass publicity stunt... which I already thought they were.

It's sort of a strawman argument, though.  AA, especially as supported by the S. Ct., is about giving minorities a marginal edge in circumstances where they are qualified applicants.  So the examples given are crap; they would only be analagous if affirmative action were extended de juris to stupid people.

In other words, diversifying skating talent is analagous to diversifying academic talent, not race.  The analagous hypo would be a skating team where, between two otherwise equivalent applicants, minority contendors were chosen in order to correct a serious social ill.

[ Parent ]

You might have a point.... (none / 1) (#319)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:57:36 PM EST

If you're contention (between two otherwise equivalent applicants, minority contendors were chosen in order to correct a serious social ill.) happaned to be true.... unfortunately ALL the statistics on both admissions and success after admission show that it is not.

The more astute analogy is another case of AA insanity. Qualification for Fire Department positions. Part of the physical tests require that the individual be able to carry a certain weight up a ladder. Not "enough" female applicants were able to pass the test.... so they lowered the weight requirements for females only. Too bad for the 200lbs bastard that needs to be carried out of a burning building and the female "fireperson" stuck with the task of doing it.

Now if you want to try to argue that there should be investment in primary school education, after-school programs and economic development programs for socio-economicly disadvantaged areas (regardless of whether they happen to be predominately black urban ghettos or predominantly white rural backwaters) then you have a valid point. I might disagree with you philosophicaly on that point...but at least you are presenting an arguement that isn't bogus.


[ Parent ]

What? (none / 2) (#332)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:45:04 PM EST

If you're contention (between two otherwise equivalent applicants, minority contendors were chosen in order to correct a serious social ill.) happaned to be true.... unfortunately ALL the statistics on both admissions and success after admission show that it is not.

What?  Really?  ALL the statistics on admissions show that minority candidates weren't otherwise qualified?  Are you serious?  

On the one hand, I'm probably misreading you.  On the other, claiming that ALL the evidence on anything, especially such a contentious and comple issue, says any one thing is just facile.

I suggest you review the recent Michigan cases, especially comparing Rehnquist's Gratz opinion and O'Connor's Grutter opinion.  AA relies on candidates benefitting from it being fundamentally otherwise as qualified as majority students.

Qualification for Fire Department positions.

This is also a straw man.  The legal standard in antidiscrimination suits in such cases is rational basis; if the Fire Department can present a legitimate rational basis for a testing requirement, that test can be used to screen applicants.  Where the tests are tossed out by the courts, there has been a finding that the requirement is disingenuous or that the test is somehow unfair from an objective standpoint, without really measuring real requirements.

[ Parent ]

Not everything revolves around a courtroom (none / 2) (#341)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:31:13 PM EST

You seem to think that all these absurd double standards are based off of the results of lawsuits.... perhaps not surprising given your apparent vocation.

However, they are not...most of them are based around "well meaning" liberal bearucrats excerising their oversight authority to engage in a private social crusades..... or demagogues stiring up special interests.... to place pressure on officials in publicly sensitive positions to enact such policies.

Access to the legal means to redress such conditions are well beyond most peoples abilities and aren't even really applicable in many cases (since policies that are unfair, impractical or just plain stupid don't neccesarly equate with ones which are illegal). Furthermore even where a policy is of legal questionably and some-one posses the means to fight it there is certainly no assurance what the result of litigation might be.

Furthermore since when did this discussion denegrate into a study into what could withstand legal scrutiny? I thought we were discussing what was fair, just, reasonable, ethical, prudent, practical? Those conditions hardly intersect perfectly with what is "legal".

If this discussion was only about the legalities of the situation then why did you bother to post an artical critical of the Campus Republican white scholoraship?..... or are you trying to claim that such a private scholorship is actualy illegal?...... that certainly didn't seem to be the gist of your criticisms.

[ Parent ]

You know... (1.50 / 4) (#198)
by Dogun on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:43:44 PM EST

I actually am not sure if I have a problem with white-people scholarships. Provided at least that they go to needy and deserving kids and that 'white' is defined in a loose manner so that everyone with a little white in 'em qualifies, much like a lot of minority scholarships. If however, it's ">=half-whites only!" I think that's fucked up and whoever suggested it should be shot. And also, how do you treat adopted children of different race than foster parents when it comes to racially specific scholarships? I've always wondered about that one.

Addendum (none / 0) (#199)
by Dogun on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 09:44:54 PM EST

This scholarship on the other hand, looks figgity fucked up.

[ Parent ]
really, I wonder why (2.85 / 7) (#202)
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 10:06:41 PM EST

why is it that WASPs can not be proud but I can be proud that I am Armenian, and African-Americans can be proud of their race /ethnicity, and greeks can be proud of their greekness, and arabs, of their arabness, etc.

WASPs and other white western european groups seem to be the only groups that cannot celebrate their roots.

as long as they do not foment hate toward any other race or ethnic group, I have no problem with it.

I could not agree more (none / 3) (#218)
by techwolf on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:12:35 PM EST

I have heard and seen more Black\arab\brown\whatever pride than I can take. However the instant I put a white pride sticker on my truck I had two different groups at school calling me a racist, even though they all had black and brown pride stickers on their various cars. So now I have a sticker right next to the white pride one that says "Deutscher Stolz" ;}


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

You are judged by the company you keep (none / 1) (#287)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:05:56 AM EST

You know, I don't think I've ever seen a "Brown Pride" bumper sticker or T-shirt.  I've seen "White Pride" slogans, though.  Mostly on TV, protesting civil rights, hawking the Turner Diaries, and lighting candles for Tim McVeigh.  People call you a racist because you make yourself sound like the Aryan Nation.

[ Parent ]
yeah and the Black community (none / 0) (#336)
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:51:14 PM EST

rallies around their criminals as well, and groups like the Nation of Islam are as bad as those who wear white pride shirts while being racists turds, but those groups and activities do not make it bad to be proud to be black.

[ Parent ]
heh (none / 1) (#406)
by techwolf on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:00:23 PM EST

where I go to school there are no less than three "brown Pride", four "black Pride" and one "Hopi Pride" stickers on various cars. and many of themso once again tell me why it is so bad that I have a "german Pride" sticker in a language that most people can't read no less. just because something sounds bad doesn't mean that it is. The point is that it is ok for them but not for me just because they might think I am some kinda aryan Racist right? well tough shit, I am happy with who I am and if you want to think of me as an Ayran Racist, well then fine you go right ahead, it won't change who I am or how I think. I am white, german and proud of it. does it mean I am a Nazi\aryan? nope, I persnally find what the Nazis did to be beyond horrible. but if you and others can't handle me having the same types of freedoms and things as you ...well tough shit.


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Not exactly true (none / 0) (#223)
by blakdogg on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:36:35 PM EST

> other white western european groups
I have seen Irish revelling in national/ethnic pride, and there is no more western part of europe.

Since WASPs are English, there are some issues in celebrating their historical roots ... Revolutionary war etc. And to state that WASPs in the US do not revel in their post independence history is just dishonest.
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]

What's there to be proud of? (1.20 / 5) (#234)
by benxor on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:42:20 AM EST

And besides which, white people being the ones who currently own the world (or at least, they are certainly of power in America), probably have never felt the need to be racially proud, or to somehow shout about and define their cultural heritage, because as the ruling class, it's never been squashed upon and deleted from history like the achievements of those who are Black. 'American' culture is White culture, in many ways - it's ideals, practises, and essential unconcscious beliefs about the shape of the world are already inscribed in everything it is, and everything that's done in America.

Minorities are always the ones to require an opportunity to remind everyone that they're there, and not just an appendage to the city they have been made into.

--
all generalisations are false - including this one
[ Parent ]

that is a reason to make it not apropriate (none / 1) (#285)
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:02:45 AM EST

to be proud to be a white western european?

[ Parent ]
i'm sorry, i wasn't aware i said that (none / 0) (#546)
by benxor on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 03:19:31 AM EST

read through it again.

--
all generalisations are false - including this one
[ Parent ]
There's nothing wrong with pride (none / 0) (#266)
by jupiter8 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:31:32 AM EST

I'm aware of my lineage, and still speak the language of my ancestors. I also make an effort to expose myself to the culture as much as possible, and am definitely proud of it.

Culture is a process that must be partaken in though. If you simply want to be proud of your roots without really knowing what they are however, then I feel obligated to question what your pride is based on.

Being proud of your ancestry without belonging to the culture is like being proud of winning the lottery: you haven't worked towards it, you're simply fortunate.

[ Parent ]
You need to look at it in context... (2.00 / 4) (#296)
by JohnnyCannuk on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:58:04 AM EST

For centuries "white pride" has been espoused not as a celebration of culture but as a means to put down other races as inferior. "White Pride" meant that unless you were white, you were only 2/3 of a man or were not entitled to rights such as voting, ownership of private property or even simple freedom of movement. It has really been in the last 30 to 40 years that it has been OK to be Black, or Hispanic or any other ethnic hue and texture other than "white and blond". It has only been in that time that many minorities have gone from being maids and manual laboureres to places higher up the economic food chain. They just haven't reached the same equalibrium yet.

So guess what? Its going to take a little longer than 30 or 40 years to correct institutional and cultural racism bred literally over centuries. You want to be angry at someone because your an 18 year old white guy who can't get into college? Try looking at your parents and grandparents, the ones who happily went along with the system. You know, the ones who outwardly talk of believing in freedom and equality between the races but would flip out and dis-own you if you brought home a Black fiance or Native-American wife (or any other colour besides white). The same ones who may have regularly used the word "nigger" in casual conversation until the mid to late 70's...

Those are the folks to be upset with, not the victims of centuries of racism that are finally getting their due, albeit slowly. You wanna get into University irregardless of race? STUDY. Earn those schalarships that are NOT based on race, but based on marks (there are still quite a few of them you know). When you get 98% in physics and math, Universities don't much care if your green, let alone black or white - they will take you.

Affirmative Action seems to affect those on the border - the slackers who cruise through high-school thinking they will get into University with a 71 average. If you can't prove yourself acedemically, then perhaps helping minorities is an appropriate way to choose.

Now I'm sure somebody is going to respond with a " yeah well I had 90 but they took a black kid with 72 over me" arguement. Apart from the arguement that you have no proof you would have been choosen if the minority wasn't around, this could be a case of Affirmative Action being turned against itself by those who don't like it. It isn't being applied as it was intended. Let me tell you about a specific example of that:

My mother works for a police force. My brother, a 6 ft 220lbs Sgt in the Armed Forces, has been trying to get onto the police force for years. During one of his attempts, it was made clear that they had to hire a Native Canadian, as this police force also serves a sizable Native population. Well, as both my mother, who got the story from the inside afterward and my brother who was there during the testing, tell me, the old Inspector who was running the recruitment didn't like "fucking Indians" and sure as hell didn't like the idea of affirmative action. So when he was scoring in the competiton he actually had a great candidate to choose from - a female, Native with a College Diploma in Law and Security in excellent shape and spoke 3 languages. But he choose a fat, out of shape native women with no education for the position. She washed out before the end of her probationary period, and the old Inspector then went around the department say "See, that affirmative actions doesn't work, look at the kind of people I have to hire. They can't make it...". Needless to say, when applied like that, the "failure" and "unfairness" of Afirmative Action is a self-fufilling prophesy.

So maybe we ought to consider that Affirmative action might work, if it weren't for the idiots who are trying to sabatoge it by not applying the policy correctly. Don't be upset with the policy, be upset when it isn't applied correctly.

And for the record, I am a white male of English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh decent with little Swedish and Native Canadian in there some where too. I'm quite proud of my heritage, but I can completely understand Affirmative Action. I also managed to get a University education, but since the Canadian University admissions system is quite different and a lot cheaper than in the US, a comparison would be unfair.
We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]

so, what you are saying is that (3.00 / 4) (#333)
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:47:56 PM EST

rather than move to the next step where everyone celebrates their heritage or race, we must make one race feel like crap for a long time, THEN we can all celebrate each other's races and cultures and being good and important to society.

seems a little messed up that the words of Dr. King and others from farther back are being used to keep racism, but just as a payback meathod to the group whose ansestors were the ones who kept minorities down.

[ Parent ]

Pleasantly surprised. : ) (none / 1) (#502)
by Kiyooka on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 07:49:41 PM EST

I was pleasantly surprised at your open-mindedness, cogent thinking, ability to take history into account, and overall understanding of the issues surrounding multiculturalism and the affirmative action program.

Then, near the end, you said one thing and it all made sense to me:

you're a fellow Canadian.  :D

*note: no, this wasn't meant as a cheap shot to Americans, but if you press me on it, then yes, I would stand by the assertion that Canadians are far more tolerant of ethnical diversity and more educated about the matter.  Everyone knows Canada is like a salad, and US is like a melting pot (I mean, c'mon:  Immigration and "Naturalization" Services?  As if not being an American is somehow unnatural...)

[ Parent ]

Denial (none / 0) (#557)
by Woundweavr on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 10:48:42 AM EST

So maybe we ought to consider that Affirmative action might work, if it weren't for the idiots who are trying to sabatoge it by not applying the policy correctly. Don't be upset with the policy, be upset when it isn't applied correct

One personal story about AA gone wrong does not mean that the reason it doesn't work is mismanagement. For instance, in California where AA is now illegal for the state system of Univ. of Cal there was widespread protest that minority enrollment was down. Howeve, while enrollment was down at the most exclusive campuses, it was also up at other campuses. Net change was less than one percent. In fact, since AA was eliminated more underrepresented minorities are enrolled in the system than before.

AA doesn't need sabotage to not work. Often, it doesn't work in the first place.

[ Parent ]

Easy (none / 1) (#530)
by superbat on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 06:14:43 PM EST

Because Armenians, greeks and arabs never had laws passed aganist them in the US.
Anti-black laws

WASPs and other white western european groups seem to be the only groups that cannot celebrate their roots.

St. Patrick's day?



[ Parent ]

Because they don't need to. (none / 0) (#552)
by Estanislao Martínez on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 05:18:40 AM EST

Why is it that WASPs can not be proud but I can be proud that I am Armenian, and African-Americans can be proud of their race /ethnicity, and greeks can be proud of their greekness, and arabs, of their arabness, etc.

Because the WASPs don't need to. They *are*, in the eyes of their culture, the normative standard of what it is to be normal. Minorities don't have that privilege; they live in a context that marks them as deviating from a norm, and they need to constantly assert that it is not wrong to do so.

--em
[ Parent ]

You don't have any problem with their freedom... (none / 3) (#224)
by Gothmolly on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:37:57 PM EST

You know, I don't think that they care about what some liberal internet blogger has to say about it. You're the margin, they're the median. Get used to it.

You know, (none / 0) (#231)
by benxor on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:35:24 AM EST

your comment adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, which is the essential problem the article author has with the actions of those who are creating the scholarship program.

And you're also a net blogger. Dickhead.

--
all generalisations are false - including this one
[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 1) (#248)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:51:33 AM EST

If I wanted to comment to them, I'd send them an email.  They aren't hard to reach.  The point is to see what people here think.

You're the margin, they're the median.

I do not think these words mean what you think they mean.  If these jokers were in the median, their publicity stunt wouldn't work.

[ Parent ]

AA is dangerous but the best we have (2.00 / 5) (#225)
by hugues on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:11:36 AM EST

Warning: I use Black instead of African-American and White instead of Caucasians. No offense meant.

AA is a bit like the UN. No one likes it, everybody denounces it as ineffectual, a waste of resources and a potential source for conflicts. However in effect, both the UN and AA do a lot of good.

First of all, people need to accept the long US history of very serious discrimination against blacks. Blacks in the US were slaves, then second class citizens unable to gain a normal primary or secondary education, much less to attend college, and now they are mostly poor, living in much worse condition on average than whites. Blacks are much more likely than whites to end up in prison, or on death row, for similar crimes. This is just the reality.

AA is just about the only programme that help redress the balance. Yes it is some kind of "racism" if you want, in the sense that it is hard for an 18 year old White to accept that they may not be able to attend the college of their choice, or at all, when a Black with the same score might.

The idea is that if those two persons' living conditions were reversed, they would not get the same score anymore. Presumably the Black would naturally get a better score and the White a lower one. Obviously there is no proof of that, and it is very easy for the White person to underestimate the incredible pressure minority feel on a daily basis, and therefore feel slighted, cheated, denied of a very important opportunity, etc.

This is the danger of AA: it can breed racism rather than help it. The answer, as usual, is education. To get a slight idea of what it means to be part of an oppressed minority, I can recommend this web site.

If ever you can get to watch the corresponding documentary ("Blue Eyed") on TV, then do it. It might open your eyes, litteraly.

You can also search for "blue eyed Jane Elliot" on google.

Did you intend that to be funny? (none / 3) (#242)
by godix on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:23:02 AM EST

However in effect, both the UN and AA do a lot of good.

The UN I'll agree with, it does some good. AA on the other hand I can't agree with. On average a black is just as poor and just as uneducated as they were back when we started AA, how can AA be consider to do a lot of good if it doesn't actually seem to be helping blacks?

This is the danger of AA: it can breed racism rather than help it. The answer, as usual, is education.

One of the evils of AA is that it can deny a white person education in favor of a black. Did you realize the irony in saying the answer to AA breeding racism is the one thing that AA helps ensure the racist won't get?

It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
- Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]
Fundamental education problem (none / 0) (#581)
by armonica on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 09:32:37 AM EST

There is a fundamental problem in the elementary schools. A number of years ago I was picking up my son and noticed on the table that there was a Maryland Standard Test report there (MSPAP is what they call it I think). If I were black I would be furious... I'm white and I was furious. It broke down who passed based on race and gender. Top of the list were white female's. Next were white males and so on then at the bottom you had black females and then black males with a score of zero. None of them passed it. Did these kids fail and did they keep them behind? Heck no, they passed them - this is from a "Blue Ribbon" school.

Then liberals/dems say we shouldn't have vouchers. How else can a lot of the black parents get their kids into a private school. My kids private school is about $3200/year (another one in the hood is about $16,000... ouch! More than I paid for college - in fact a LOT more). The vouchers in most cases would cover that. I took my kids out of public school not because they were failing, it was because they were boared silly. The school should have skipped them a few grades. That is what the academy did - my 5th grade son tested out at a 11th grade reading/vocabulary in the public school test - 7th grade in the private school test.

So obviously the information was there, the black kids didn't learn it. I know my wife and I didn't give our kids any special instruction. Nobody I talked to has an answer for this. Maybe they do but it is not PC.

Then they graduate and want a high paying job (as most people do) without the base knowledge. No can do so they try to sell us this AA stuff. Incompetence squared!

[ Parent ]

White Pride? (2.25 / 4) (#227)
by NeantHumain on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:23:36 AM EST

Simply using the phrase "white pride" makes it sound more like something the KKK might sponsor than what even the Republican Party would. If they want to protest affirmative action, how about a scholarship that completely ignores race as a factor? Nah, that would be too obvious and too uninflammatory.


I hate my sig.


They already have those (none / 0) (#580)
by armonica on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 08:48:38 AM EST

Do you live in a hole or something (see Saddam, Bin Laden, Nick Nolte or Dean down there)? Many if not most scholarships are color blind. Many are even gender blind. I also happen to know that there are a fair number of scholarships that go unclaimed year after year. Nobody bothered to applied for them.

[ Parent ]
Instead redistibuting wealth by race (2.75 / 4) (#230)
by auraslip on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:34:49 AM EST

why not try it by social caste?
___-___
Well... (none / 2) (#232)
by HappySocialtarian on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:42:07 AM EST

All the rational consideration and new or useful arguments in the world are worth jack squat if no one outside your group pays attention to them. That's why I have no problem with the affirmative action bake sales, they grab attention and are innocent enough that most reasonable people can see the point behind them and not be offended. Parody is a useful tool for getting attention.

My problem with this scholarship is that it's much easier to take the wrong way. It's going to elicit inaccurate memes that equate Republicans with racists; the fact that it's being run by a Puerto Rican (who counts as non-white, by American standards) is going to be forgotten. Some fool Democrat is going to bring it up as proof when trying to convince an independent that all Republicans are racists, and that's not what these people want. In their parodies, they should stick to giving the advantage to minorities; there's much ground they haven't covered here.

Let's question this part. (none / 0) (#551)
by Estanislao Martínez on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 05:04:53 AM EST

the fact that it's being run by a Puerto Rican (who counts as non-white, by American standards) is going to be forgotten.

The article I read said that the guy is "of Puerto Rican descent". His last name (Mattera) isn't very Puerto Rican sounding (and I've met hundreds of Puerto Ricans over many years). I suspect that this guy is not very ethnically Puerto Rican; and I smell someone playing up the incidental ancestry because it's convenient ("He's Puerto Rican, he can't be racist!"). Not that I know this for sure.

Not that I accept for a second your implication that minority members can side with racial reactionaries.

--em
[ Parent ]

Racist? (2.60 / 10) (#233)
by Quila on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:42:13 AM EST

Somehow a scholarship excluding whites is a great thing, while a scholarship excluding blacks is a "grotesque gimmick." Somehow a university granting benefits to people based on race is good, yet a bake sale exposing the practice's racism is "merely infantile and ineffectual."

Who's the racist?

You are. (1.00 / 5) (#265)
by ninja rmg on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:20:13 AM EST





[ Parent ]
Impressive (none / 1) (#417)
by Quila on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:38:10 PM EST

That was an intelligent, well-argued reply.

[ Parent ]
Intelligent, sure, (none / 0) (#431)
by ninja rmg on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 12:15:35 AM EST

But there's no need to argue this matter. You're obviously in the wrong and are not entitled to a rehashing of arguments settled decades ago.



[ Parent ]
There is need (none / 0) (#597)
by Quila on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 07:09:58 PM EST

You're obviously in the wrong and are not entitled to a rehashing of arguments settled decades ago.

I cannot see where I'm obviously wrong. Doing something for one race is good and doing the same for another is racist. The concept in itself is racist and hypocritical. Racism will not have a chance to end until the government and our institutions refuse to either grant privilege or deny right based on race.

[ Parent ]

Affirmative majority action (2.75 / 4) (#240)
by yamla on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:11:06 AM EST

(Reposted by request)

At my university (or at least, the one I graduated from), there are a number of undergraduate scholarships available only to women.  Much more so than the number available only to men.  I found this interesting because women make up the majority of undergraduate students at the university by a fairly large margin.

Now, generally the scholarships are available only in fields where the ratios clearly favour men, fields such as engineering and the sciences.  And there's a lot of good arguments showing that while women are more likely to get admission, more likely to do well in my university, and more likely to graduate, they are not evenly distributed in the workforce.  Still, it bothers me that what is by most measurements a privileged majority at my university is eligable for funding aimed at helping produce equality when it obviously is now targeting the wrong gender.

If I was rich and generous, the obvious answer would be for me to donate to provide a male-only version of each of the female-only scholarships and awards.  I wonder how much that would cost.

There are male only scholarships (none / 0) (#432)
by blakdogg on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 12:20:00 AM EST

I find that most universities are quite adept in deploying scholarship funds to encourage participation by by certain demographics in certain fields. There are scholarships available to men at the expense of women. These scholarships are generally in fields where women predominate, like nursing and teaching. Anyone who has visited a hospital would know that nursing is a field with few men, as anyone who visits a CS dept would know that men predominate there.
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]
Myth of male power (none / 0) (#579)
by armonica on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 08:42:42 AM EST

Ey dude... You should check out this book from the library - if they still have it. The book was written by a dude who used to be on the BOD of the NOW in NYC. He tells it like it is. He has real examples of how men get the shaft all the time.

Some of what you are seeing is from the Bill (I Feel Your Pain) Clinton administration. They propogated the lie that Women aren't making it into professional fields because of college so they poured massive amounts of money into women and college. Now a white male is rare on many campuses. The last numbers I saw showed that almost every campus has more women than men. This is also true if you look at 1930 numbers from the Census Bureau. That's right, 1930's numbers. The notion that women were being kept down is a big lie. As big of lie as blacks and other minorities today are being "kept down." Most colleges are tough guys - you have to earn your way. Not everyone is capable of graduating. Then there are schools like Harvard - go into the bathroom, degrees are on a roll in the stall. They just introduced a new porn mag there - H bomb. How apropos. Maybe I'll subscribe.

However people are entitled to their opinions - no matter how wrong and ignorant they are. So I say let them do it. Let them have their scholarship, whoever "them" is as long as it is legal. Being a white male shouldn't be illegal.

[ Parent ]

How I would fight affirmative action (2.00 / 4) (#243)
by Meatbomb on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:24:55 AM EST

I think I've mentioned this here before, but whatever:

If I were applying to college in the states I would apply under my new name, Ramón Ferreyros, racial background half black, one quarter South American native, one quarter European. If anyone looked into my baby blues and claimed I was in fact a white man, I'd sue the fuck out of them.



_______________

Good News for Liberal Democracy!

Clarification Requested (none / 0) (#291)
by blakdogg on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:16:16 AM EST

What exactly is a South American native ?


Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]

Aboriginal (none / 0) (#569)
by Meatbomb on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 12:00:50 AM EST

Like Amazon tribe, first peoples, native american, Indian, whatever they call those folks down there. With my 1/4 native, 1/2 black, 1/4 white mix I guess I'm technically a mestizo, not sure on the spelling there though.

_______________

Good News for Liberal Democracy!

[ Parent ]
What really burns my burrito (2.71 / 7) (#250)
by labradore on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:06:36 AM EST

The first college I attended after highschool was Georgia Tech. It's located in the heart of Atlanta and it's expensive for a non-Georgia resident (like me) to attend. My first year there cost upwards of $29,000 (living cheaply). I had no scholarships. I am white.

My roommate, however, was not white. He was from Decatur (a working-class suburb of Atlanta--read, mostly black). While he theoretically paid in-state tuition which would have brought his costs down closer to $11,000/year, his innumerable race-based scolarships negated those costs and, all-told, he earned a little over $3,000/year just to go to school. I eventually failed out of Georgia Tech (2/3 of freshmen there do). I don't know what happened to him. At last check, he had lost his state academic scholarship and was picking up new race-based scholarships designed to keep black students in school almost without regard to academic performance. I think that the net effect was that he was going to break even that year.

I have no ill will against him for saving huge sums of money on college. I would have done the same, given the chance. My family, at the time, had enough savings to spend about $35,000 my schooling. Obviously the total cost of an engineering degree at that time for me was going to be over $100,000 (had I been an above-average Ga. Tech student--graduating after 5 years).

His family had no money saved for his college and from what I gather was living paycheck to paycheck. I suppose that it can be pretty scary to consider going to a tough school when you know that if you fail, you have almost no means to payback loans, that you may not statistically earn as much (as a white male with the same credentials) and that you may face discrimination after you graduate. However, I wonder why I would have little choice but to bear the burden of $50,000 to $90,000 worth of loans after graduating due to the fact that my family had worked hard to save enough to pay for the first year of school and because I simply am not part of a racial minority.

Remember, this is how it works out for an average student. Not necessarily the very rich or very poor; this is how it was (and still is) for most students. I believe that programs and scholarships should be available to help minorities succeed in college. I also believe that the greater good is served by making a best effort to assist the majority of students to succeed and pay for school. For a start, people might realize that minorities and poor people are much better served by investment in "at risk" K-12 education and after-school programs than by huge scholarship programs for the few who do survive the sub-standard public schools in poorer neighboorhoods. Current minority scholarship and admissions systems are destructive and dis-incentive to the well-being of both the students they aim to serve and their peers. Until universities decide to embrace programs that properly assist most students, I have no urgent problem with activities like the white-only scholarship ($250. Two books! Hahhah!)

what all a bunch of fucking armchair philosophers (1.18 / 22) (#252)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:22:38 AM EST

i've scanned some of the comments below, and all of these stupid rich white assholes sitting in front of their computer in their parent's basement have found the "truth"

hallefuckinglujah

they have ruminated deeply, and they come to realize their common, simple opinion to share on the "truth" about race-based admissions

all of which boil down to one dimensional uninspired thinking: opinions are like assholes... everyone has one, but most of them stink

listen up you fucking armchair upper middle class rich white assholes on kuro5hin with your "deep thoughts"

this is about TRUTH and FAIRNESS... believe it or not you dim one-dimensional asswipes, there is a difference:

the TRUTH of it all is that whites and blacks should have equal consideration when getting into higher education. if not, then it seems like blacks need "special help" getting into college.

you all got that. clap, clap, clap. throw the fucking low iq dogs a fucking bone. you're all great philosophers. yeah. glad you had to share this wonderful insight into equality. a fucking 3 year old can realize the same fucking thing.

the FAIRNESS of it is this: there are less blacks, proportionally, with a college education, than there are whites, proportionally, with a college education.

hmm, think deeply now dimwits.

this needs to be fixed. do you understand that? do you deny that this needs to be fixed? what are the options, dimwits. line them up. get in your suburban white middle class philosophical armchairs and scratch your brilliant fucking heads.

ignoring the fact of disproportionate racial degree holding will not make the problem go away. the problem will either fester, or get worse.

so you think quotas feed racist propaganda?

just think what chronic unmoveable economic and social inequality does for racist propaganda. hmmm... compare and contrast, let's see how you do on that mental skillset.

so here it is: until things are FAIR, fuck the TRUTH. why do blacks lag behind whites? history! is anyone going to deny this? the economic backgrounds of blacks, on the average, deals them a harder hand getting into higher education than whites, on the average. are you appreciating these other plain as day immovable rocks of gibraltar yet? can you juggle more than one fact in your head at a time? does selective ignoring of the elephant in the room allow you to stick with your simple ruminations?

so how do you fix the injustices of history? how do you level the economic playing field?

through education, that's how.

yes, there are a million ways to fix the economic injustices of american history, but none are as straightforward and simple as quotas in the university system to fix this education/ economic equality.

unfortunately, it's simplicity also make it a big fat fucking target to shoot down by the low iq doubters as well. "hmmm... quotas... doesn't seem fair." no shit sherlock! can you POSSIBLY expand your analytical skills to see the other UNFAIR facets of reality at play? do you insist to fix the debate at the 8th grader writing his first two page essay level of analytical skills?

"racial qutoas are unfair because they favor one race over another."

HEY YOU DIMWIT. WHAT RACE DOES FUCKING AMERICAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL REALITY FAVOR. HOW DO WE FIX IT?

capice?

more nuanced ways to deal with racial economic injustice in america also wind up seeming even more patronizing and insulting to blacks.

so we stick with quotas for the time being. ok? do you understand there is a problem? do you understand there needs to be a fix? what simple fucking facts can you not digest so far einstein?

those on the right get the idea of truth, but the concept of fairness eludes them.

the right should get their truth, but not today. they should get it later, after we all have fairness.

get it y'all?

for the assholes and morons who think quotas exist because they think blacks need "special help" getting into college, fuck them. there will always be stupid racist fucks. we can continue to ignore them, even though this debate seems to attract them like moths to a porch light.

quotas are temporary, over the span of years or decades it takes to fix historical economic imbalances. no one says its permanent.

OK??!!

and btw, conservative americans should stick to foreign policy and economic policy and leave social policy alone. the republicans and the right have consistently come up losers when they try to mess with social policy.

even though social policy seems to be that which is most dear to their hearts, it's also that which conservatives consistently fuck up the most. they "just don't get it" at some simple fundamental level. destined to lose.

i could leave it up to the "deep thinkers" (snicker) to figure out why this paradox seems to be so, but personally i will wAger it is because "compassionate conservatism" is about as big an oxymoron as you can get. the stupid social policy initiative of bush on affirmative action is example #1 of that oxymoron at work. there's no compassion in it, and a lot of blind self-defeating conservatism.

so my lovely "deep thinking" conservative assholes: where is your compassion, for example, for gays who just want to get fucking married, and will never affect your dear, dear divorce-ridden american family which apparently is so important to you. gays getting married in san francisco will never get near your low iq suburban kids.

likewise, a fraction of your stupid fucking white punk kids will go to their secondary school of choice so that a black kid can climb out of the social and economic historical injustices that are allayed against him. only the dimwitted racists will think of this as a bad thing. capice? DEAL WITH IT YOU FUCKS.

drop dead you stupid asshole conservative fucks, god i hate you. a waste of space and thought. nothing but dimwitted opinions formed from not taking everything into account. a bunch of "concerns" and "objections" which amount to nothing but a dim bulb.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

There's only one solution! (none / 0) (#263)
by bigchris on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:05:56 AM EST

Have faith in God.

---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
[ Parent ]
there's only one solution! (none / 1) (#357)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:06:49 PM EST

go away

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
What? no long rant? (nt) (none / 0) (#437)
by bigchris on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:48:04 AM EST



---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
[ Parent ]
Do you even know what that statement means? (none / 2) (#368)
by Kiyooka on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 06:51:37 PM EST

It means:

"Fill yourself with a nice fuzzy feeling that all things are the best that they can be, and if not, then soon they will be.  This injustice was meant to be by a big powerful being in the clouds, so there's really no reason to think.  Why think?  Just accept it and smile and feel good."

YOU are a part of the world.  YOU, in part, decide how the world is going to be.  Did you know that in medieval times agricultural folk were told they should "trust in God" when they were being oppressed?  They were told that, by slaving for the King so well, they would go to heaven after they died.  After all, the King was supposedly chosen by god.  And who could argue with that thinking?  Nobody ever came back from the dead to tell them that they were being oppressed.  Hence Marx's (and yes, I'm sure you all saw this quote coming):  religion is the opiate of the masses.

Can you trust a fuzzy feel-good feeling if requires you to stop thinking?

[ Parent ]

Nice try (none / 1) (#278)
by Exo on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 10:56:41 AM EST

You're comment is no different from the ones you criticize, full of assertions and bias. Any educated reader can pick them out blindfolded.

Now stop trying to act smart and go home.

[ Parent ]
thanks for playing (none / 1) (#356)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:06:18 PM EST

do you have anything to say? or do you just want to shit on everyone?

hypocrisy is an interesting concept isn't it?

how about this: accusing me of being smug and condescending in a post that spanks of smug condescension?

that's right fucktwit, thanks for playing, give your mom a kiss on the cheek for me

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Profanity? (none / 0) (#570)
by Exo on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 03:47:59 AM EST

I never said anything about being smug and condescending. I never said that I wasn't.

I said your statements were "full of assertions and bias'. Pretty simple if you can read.

Like I said, nice try. The fact that you resort to calling me profane names just proves what kind of person you are.

[ Parent ]
Wow, (none / 2) (#280)
by JohnnyCannuk on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 10:58:28 AM EST

A lot of cursing and obvious trolling in that post, but also a great deal of insight. I gave you a +(3) Encourage...man IU don't beleive I'm agreeing with circletimesquare!
We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]
Ok Moron (none / 3) (#283)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:00:00 AM EST

"....the economic backgrounds of blacks, on the average, deals them a harder hand getting into higher education than whites, on the average. are you appreciating these other plain as day immovable rocks of gibraltar yet?"

So if the problem stems from economic disadvantage why make something other then economic disadvantage a factor to make up for it?

Braniac, if your left front tire is flat you don't monkey with your transmission to fix the problem... you change the damn flat. How hard of a concept is that?

Not every black person suffers the same degree of socio-economic disadvantage nor every white person the same degree of socio-economic advantage. All race based admissions do is give the children of Bill Cosby, Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods the same advantage as some orphan from the hood..... and give some poor redneck from the Ozarks the same penalties as the kids of Bill Gates, George Bush and Martin Sheen. There is no way in hell you are going to convince me that Bill Cosby's kid needs greater assistance in access to higher education then the white kid from the Ozarks.

Look, I'm not in favor of socialism....so I'm really not interested in any discrimination in admissions policies other then based on ability..... but if you are going to try to make that arguement you could at least pick the one that actualy addresses the problem you are trying to solve.

 

[ Parent ]

volley, serve (none / 1) (#354)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:02:04 PM EST

reality... idealism

fairness... truth

you got a stranglehold in your mind on truth and idealism

let's see if your plodding dim bulb can get the other 2 concepts someday

good luck on that, fucktwit

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Life isn't fair... (none / 1) (#360)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:22:27 PM EST

...so get a grip on that.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
There are people who accept that life isn't fair, (none / 3) (#369)
by Kiyooka on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 06:54:39 PM EST

and then there are those who try to make life fair in the short time they are alive.

In history, which people do we remember?

What kind of a life would you rather look back on?

Cowardice?
or Nobility?

[ Parent ]

I couldn't agree more (none / 1) (#372)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:09:28 PM EST

But the context of this discussion is CTS complaining because he doesn't think everyone else is being 'fair'.  Unfortunately life isn't as simple as CTS makes it out to be.  I think that one does need to strive nobly to make this sad life a better place for the poeple that live it, but his idea of 'fair' and other people's won't necessarily square up.  For example, is it OK to be 'fair' to someone by being 'unfair' to someone else?  That's what CTS is advocating, and I say that's a poor position to take.

He says make things 'fairer' for minorities in America through Quotas and AA.  But this is then unfair to those who have worked hard but still get excluded from College because they don't happen to be a minority.  I say make life 'fairer' for everyone by improving the education system from the get-go, so that as best as possible everyone has the opportunity to succeed (whatever they choose that to mean) in their own life.

That would be fair.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

A matter of scaling. (none / 2) (#379)
by Kiyooka on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:47:45 PM EST

Yes, I also think it's unfair that the hardworking kid gets rejected from university just because he's white.  But consider these quotas from a larger perspective.

There are only so many spaces available in schools.  Obviously, you cannot make everyone happy.  It takes too much manpower and time to evaluate every application on a case-by-case basis.  What we're looking at here is to rebalance the ratio of educated people among all the races, because education is really the only way to raise your income and class level.

Since non-whites are seriously under-represented in terms of education, the gov't uses quotas to ensure that there is the same proportion of educated people among all races.  So in the end, yes, you will have some unfairly discriminated against whites, but you'll have millions of coloured people finally grateful that the door has been opened to them to raise their class level.  These people have been discriminated against by older white folk in power who grew up (like everyone else back then) in a racist environment with racist parents, grandparents, media, society, etc.  After all, racism was still *legal* a few decades ago, and most of our grandparents or maybe even *parents* were still alive back then, not to mention THEIR parents who taught them their values.

These quotas are a way to rebalance an imbalance system.

[ Parent ]

A thoughtful reply, thanks. (none / 1) (#383)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:00:15 PM EST

You reply was thoughtful and well considered.  But I'd like to take some liberty and rephrase it in a way that you may not have considered.  Please don't be offended by this, as that is not my intent (and definitely doesn't reflect my views :-).

------------------------------------------------
Yes, I also think it's unfair that the hardworking black gets rejected from land ownership just because he's black.  But consider land ownership from a larger perspective.

There is only so much land available in the US.  Obviously, you cannot make everyone happy.  It takes too much manpower and time to evaluate every application on a case-by-case basis.  What we're looking at here is to make sure the land is distributed in a way to balance the productivity of the nation, because productivity is really the only way to raise America's income and class level.

Since whites are seriously the best land managers in terms of education, the gov't uses land ownership to ensure that there is the same productivity of land in the US.  So in the end, yes, you will have some unfairly discriminated against blacks, but you'll have millions of white  people grateful that the door has been opened to them to own land...
----------------------------------------------

It doesn't make pretty reading, does it?

Racism is racism is racism, and it's ugly no matter what guise it comes under.  There are better solutions that quotas.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

what a racist asshole fucktwit (none / 3) (#392)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:27:57 PM EST

Since whites are seriously the best land managers in terms of education, the gov't uses land ownership to ensure that there is the same productivity of land in the US.

stupid goddamn motherfucking racist dimwitted asshole

die you stupid asshole fucktwit

I

HATE

RACISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes, exactly (none / 1) (#401)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:41:52 PM EST

See how racist it is?

Anyhow, stop frothing at the mouth, I hate it when I have to get the carpets steam cleaned.

As a more serious aside, have you considered therapy, or maybe even remedial reading classes?  No one with an ounce of objectivity or reading comprehension could take my post for anything other than a bile-filled rant against racism, and yet it has sent you off into a spit-filled frenzy.  Calm down, man.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Hahaha (none / 2) (#421)
by aboutnothing on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 10:49:46 PM EST

Hahaha, how entertaining. I can't help but laugh at this guy. First, he posts all of these comments: "rich white assholes" "stupid fucking white punk kids" "YOU STUPID RICH WHITE SUBURBAN FUCKS" "you rich white suburban assholes" "rich white suburban mother fuckers" "god i hate you rich white suburban fucks" and on and on... And then states "I HATE RACISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Which first of all is funny in and of itself. But also, the fact that it was a response to >>"Since whites are seriously the best land managers in terms of education, the gov't uses land ownership to ensure that there is the same productivity of land in the US."< is also quite amusing because he interpreted it COMPLETELY wrong RIGHT after going on and on and on about how everyone is "so fucking stupid" and "all of your opinions amount to an 8th grader's understanding of reality" and "you stupid one dimensional fucks" and "your simplistic dim bulb thinking and "your utter complete lack of comprehension and understanding" etc. etc. Really, quite amusing.

[ Parent ]
Why don't y'all just ignore this loser? (none / 0) (#590)
by Exo on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 12:23:00 AM EST

He obviously has nothing to do but post thousands of comments on k5 all day long.

Posting all these replies just encourages him.

(Yes I see the irony in posting to say this.)

[ Parent ]
Not getting your point (none / 0) (#429)
by blakdogg on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 12:04:13 AM EST

> Since whites are seriously the best land managers in terms of education, the gov't uses land ownership to ensure that there is the same productivity of land in the US.

Not sure how that addresses the prior post, but it is a racist statement. And it is a statement that has no parallel in the parent post. Since your conclusions fail to hinge on the same or similar logic as the parent, you do not present a parallel case. Instead you come off as a circa 1840s sugar 'farmer'.

A more honest example could reference the push in parts of South America to 'fasttrack' the awarding of land titles to Amerindians. A idea that I agree with.
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]

That's beautiful. (none / 0) (#436)
by esrever on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:29:13 AM EST

Another person who requires remedial reading classes, and who has just fragged the grandparent post as a result.

Yes blakdogg, it is a racist statement.

Because you missed it, I'll run it past you slowly:
I took everything that Kiyooka said in his parent post, and everytime he said 'white' I said 'black' and visa versa, and everytime he said 'education', I said 'land ownership'.  So, what you have just done is made my point for me, which was that the argument Kiyooka and many others have put forward as justification for Quotas are in fact racist.  I copied his post verbatim, then basically just changed the descriptive words around.  Nice one, huh?

So yes, I couldn't agree more, it is racist.  And racism stinks no matter what guise it comes under.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

No offense taken. : ) (none / 0) (#466)
by Kiyooka on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 12:53:07 PM EST

We're all here for discussion after all, right? (at least, most of us) I would say that the above situation is not quite a parallel because the quotas do not have a critical characteristic: they are not rebalancing an imbalanced system, but introducing balance into the system in the first place. The university quotas we're discussing are being argued for because non-caucasians are radically under-represented in universities (which is a statistically correct statement), but in the above scenario the quotas are being argued for by the claim that whites are better land managers (an inherently racist statement since we're all alike). In the university situation, there is a rebalancing of a system from a racist tendency back to neutrality, but in the second an imbalance towards racism is introduced into the system in the first place. Sorry, maybe I should have worded my response more clearly before. Anyway, I agree that racism sucks shit for humanity, whether original or anti- racism. But I can also see why it's being implemented, because with non-caucasians having no education, they don't go anywhere, and so their kids have no education, etc. And the more this cycle continues, the more stereotypes creep in about "these people are naturally better at this" and "those people are all by nature crooks", etc., and so none of them get hired, can't afford rent and food, much less education, so they have to commit crimes or join gangs to stay alive, so the stereotypes are ingrained even more, so their chances of being hired anywhere drop even lower, etc. etc. etc. Very shitty cycle to be stuck in. In my opinion, some people are trying to use these quotas to open up a doorway from this cycle.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, here's formatted version! (none / 0) (#467)
by Kiyooka on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 12:54:51 PM EST

We're all here for discussion after all, right? (at least, most of us)

I would say that the above situation is not quite a parallel because the quotas do not have a critical characteristic: they are not rebalancing an imbalanced system, but introducing balance into the system in the first place. The university quotas we're discussing are being argued for because non-caucasians are radically under-represented in universities (which is a statistically correct statement), but in the above scenario the quotas are being argued for by the claim that whites are better land managers (an inherently racist statement since we're all alike). In the university situation, there is a rebalancing of a system from a racist tendency back to neutrality, but in the second an imbalance towards racism is introduced into the system in the first place.

Sorry, maybe I should have worded my response more clearly before. Anyway, I agree that racism sucks shit for humanity, whether original or anti- racism. But I can also see why it's being implemented, because with non-caucasians having no education, they don't go anywhere, and so their kids have no education, etc. And the more this cycle continues, the more stereotypes creep in about "these people are naturally better at this" and "those people are all by nature crooks", etc., and so none of them get hired, can't afford rent and food, much less education, so they have to commit crimes or join gangs to stay alive, so the stereotypes are ingrained even more, so their chances of being hired anywhere drop even lower, etc. etc. etc. Very shitty cycle to be stuck in. In my opinion, some people are trying to use these quotas to open up a doorway from this cycle.


[ Parent ]

Cool, I can agree with all that (none / 0) (#482)
by esrever on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 03:16:50 PM EST

I just think that there are better, less 'racially motivated' ways of breaking that cycle.

From my perspective it looks like this:
What is different about being at College than compared to normal school?  In other words, if someone can only get into College because society/culture/circumstance have conspired to impede their learning while at school, why will being at College magically remove these factors so they will succeed where before they 'failed'?  Or to put it a different way; if they can't get into College on their own merits, hasn't the system already failed?  College is no walk in the park, right?

So I look at it like this; all the money being poured in to fix this broken situation is being put in the wrong place for two reasons:

  1. It would be far, far better spent addressing the issues that cause blacks and other minorities to have difficulty competing for College entrance in the first instance.
  2. It generates more ill-will, racial disharmony, and anger in its current guise than your or I can imagine - just look at some of the threads on this board!  Surely this is a case of the cure being worse than the disease (especially if there is a better solution).
And finally, on a slightly OT tangent; why are we concerned with the colour of people's skin anyway?  Need is need, and there are plenty of needy people all over this world in every skin colour under the sun.

My wish is for a system that is colourblind, but not need blind; this means eliminating affirmative action, and eliminating alumni advantage, and putting the money instead into our needy inner cities.

Cheers,


Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Excellent point. (none / 0) (#486)
by Kiyooka on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 05:19:43 PM EST

Yeah, that's an excellent point:  the racism now will not be alleviated by more coloured people entering university via quotas.  It'll just cause more resentment, anger, etc. at the quotas, and the racism will still exist to keep victims down.  White people born today are just as innocent as black people born today.

Perhaps this is all the government can think of now to address this issue.  It's not a perfect solution, but I think it nevertheless does help a lot.  Education is really critical to improving your life's standing.  And as more educated non-caucasians enter society, perhaps those racial boundaries will begin to soften, or so the policy-makers hope.

Also, I had another thought that perhaps this was a move by someone wanting to harness the votes of minorities.  After all, isn't the U.S. voting participation rate at something like 15%? (not sure, just remember it was very low)  Since most voters are caucasian, that's a LOT of untapped minority votes.  If you become the "minority's hero", that's a very very nice position to be in.  To be seen as some sort of social hero is every politician's wet dream come true, and an easy boost to your career.

[ Parent ]

Yep (none / 0) (#488)
by esrever on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 05:40:05 PM EST

That's an interesting thought, but, well, I hesitate to say I buy the theory of politicians 'buying' votes like this.  Someone else suggested the same elsewhere in this thread, too.

It is definitely a real possibility (the lord only knows how many unscrupulous politicians there are in this world), but I guess that without strong evidence to the contrary I would like to imagine that these sorts of motives are generally avoided by our political overlords...  (maybe I'm naive :-)

I sure hope they are, anyhow :-/

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

oops, big typo: (none / 0) (#477)
by Kiyooka on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 02:00:40 PM EST

Should say: We're all here for discussion after all, right? (at least, most of us) I would say that the above situation is not quite a parallel because the quotas do not have a critical characteristic: they are not rebalancing an imbalanced system, but introducing im-balance into the system in the first place...

[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0) (#430)
by blakdogg on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 12:09:21 AM EST

> I say make life 'fairer' for everyone by improving the education system from the get-go, so that as best as possible everyone has the opportunity to succeed (whatever they choose that to mean) in their own life.

Good, I say keep Affirmative Action in place until that is accomplished.
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]

wow, that was a rant-and-a-half (none / 2) (#340)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:24:56 PM EST

"""
so here it is: until things are FAIR, fuck the TRUTH. why do blacks lag behind whites? history! is anyone going to deny this?
"""

I have one word for you, buddy: Zimbabwe.

Go take a look at the crap that's been going on there for 30 years and is still going on today and tell me that's the white man holding them down.

Being white does not make me responsible for the world's problems (you deep thinker you), and screw you for telling me that it does.

You know what, you used some racial epithets in your little junior-school rant:
"fucking white punk kids"
"upper middle class rich white assholes"
So clearly you think it's OK to be racist.

Oh, and here's some more for you:
"""
through education, that's how.
"""
Yes you brilliant 'deep thinker' you; and when does education begin?  It begins when children go to school for the very first time and continues until they leave.  So if you are having to send people into College through what is effectively legal fiat, then you have already failed.  Wakeup and smell the coffee.  Quotas are NOT the answer, better education from the start is the answer, and that has nothing to do with race.

Simpleton.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

hey fucking einstein (none / 2) (#352)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:59:27 PM EST

zimbabwe is not the usa, ok?

what does that bolt of lightning do to your plodding intellect?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I notice (none / 1) (#361)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:23:27 PM EST

that you ignored everything else.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
i noticed (none / 1) (#390)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:24:40 PM EST

that zimbabwe does not equal usa pretty much brings down that house of cards

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
It seems pretty clear... (none / 1) (#398)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:35:58 PM EST

...that you're incapable of putting together a coherent, clear argument for your case.

Here it goes in slow-motion for you; I didn't consider/realise that you were speaking US-centrically until after posting.  Whoops, my bad.  Oh well, water under the bridge.  However, all of the points I made are orthogonal; that means that one being irrelevant has no bearing on the validity or relevance of any of the others.  Read carefully my post and you will see this.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

I agree with you on the point... (none / 2) (#371)
by Kiyooka on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:03:38 PM EST

that the younger folks of today should not be shackled with guilt by the racism of their forefathers.  CircleTimesSquare should have been more sensitive there.  But the insults were an expression of rage towards the sick irony that anti-racist measures were being labelled "racist".  This labelling can only be done when you take those quotas out of context, ie. without see that these quotas are to REBALANCE an imbalanced system, not introduce imbalance in the first place.

One thing my professor taught me that I'll always remember whenever I consider society:  whenever you notice any sort of power structure/relation, any odd trends, any kind of social injustice, and any kind of ideology, any sort of social/statistical aberration, think:  whom does it serve?  Aberrations in history only appear to be aberrations to the uninformed.

The fact that 9 out of 10 congressman and CEOs are white is one BIG FUCKING HUGE STATISTICAL ABERRATION.

[ Parent ]

Only in the US (none / 1) (#374)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:25:55 PM EST

And it was colonised and the whole capitalist system basically created by the whites.  So I would argue that no, it's not really an aberration at all; it's an expression of the system that gave it birth.  Now, whether that's right or wrong, or whether it needs 'fixing' is an entirely different matter.  If in 200 years time, minorities are still under-represented in the positions that you specify, then you will have an aberration.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
200 years? (none / 2) (#377)
by Kiyooka on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:33:22 PM EST

"If in 200 years time, minorities are still under-represented in the positions that you specify, then you will have an aberration"

Then what about the under-represented minorities that exist now and will exist in the next 200 years?  Just let them be under-represented for the next 200 years, and then see if things *maybe* get better?  Of course not.  That would be sheer injustice.

Hence these quotas, to accelerate the rebalancing.

[ Parent ]

I only pick 200... (none / 1) (#381)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:52:26 PM EST

...for the sake of a number, however the point is the same.  We are already, in today's world of College-entrance-age-teenagers, in a generation who were not born under any government segregationist policies, and in fact potentially their parents weren't born under such policies either.  So why is AA necessary?  Potentially for two generations now minorities (and particularly blacks) have been living in a society with no laws to restrict them any more than anyone else.

So why is AA necessary?  Surely if there are still problems with not enough representation in Colleges today then the real answer is cultural and societal change.  Not quotas to pump more minorities into Colleges that otherwise wouldn't have gotten there.  A generation later why do we still need this?  The answer is because we aren't addressing the root cause.  The root cause is a cultural and societal environment that does not foster development and success among minorities, and thus needs to be reversed.  As another poster elsewhere in this thread noted, why do asians not have the problems with money/school/whatever that other minorities do?  Surely it would be worthwhile assessing there success and working out what makes them different from any other minority in the country?

Now, if such monies and efforts had been sunk wholesale into this 40 years ago, think what the college admissions roll might look like today.  Instead, we have divisive AA plans that engender more division and anger, a continuing under-representation of minorities in Colleges, and a society that goes ballistic when some people suggest giving a lousy $250 to someone because they're white.

Can you not see the destructive cycle here?


Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Then let's identify the hand behind all this. (none / 2) (#384)
by Kiyooka on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:04:00 PM EST

Gotta go soon, so I'll reply fast.

Let's just get right to the chase.  Yes, I actually agree, anti-racism is not the answer.  I actually believe the only answer is, like you said, a culture change so people don't see race, only people.  Race is just another illusion after all.

But, there's one problem:  all these promises, laws, etc. are done by politicians.  A politicians goal is to get as many votes as possible.  Really, that's all 99% of them care about.  Since there's already so many policitians out there, someone trying to get recognition and votes can do something like this to get easy votes:  suddenly, the previously unpopular boring politician with an uncertain career and future declares that he'll make these quotas, and suddenly he gets TONS of votes by minority voters!  His career is made more secure, he's called a "fighter of justice" or whatever-the-hell in the newpapers, his smiles on the front page, and so on...  After all, most of the minority voters (just like the rest of the world, since we're all alike)  are selfish:  they only know they're angry for the racism of the past centuries, and they still feel that anger.  They don't want all races to be equal, they haven't had the past injustices made up yet!  They want a form of vengeance, though that may be too harsh a word.  What an easy cheap way to get votes, huh?

Know what I mean?  Anyway gotta go, off work now and g/f awaits! :D


[ Parent ]

OK (none / 1) (#386)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:07:06 PM EST

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not.  And I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment or not.  But I guess the situation you describe is possible.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
Zimbabwe ? (none / 0) (#424)
by blakdogg on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:45:32 PM EST

> I have one word for you, buddy: Zimbabwe.
What about Zimbabwe exactly ? Is there something about it that is relevant to your point ?
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]
This is answered elsewhere in the thread [nt] (none / 0) (#443)
by esrever on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 02:14:03 AM EST



Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
really (none / 0) (#454)
by blakdogg on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 08:48:36 AM EST

I see one instance where it is state that the situation in Zimbabwe is not relevant because the discussion is about the US. I do not see any case where the 'one word' situation is explained.
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]
OK, reading for comprehension time again (none / 0) (#481)
by esrever on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 03:02:51 PM EST

CTS let loose such a rant that it sounded in the first instance to me as if he was ranting about the white man keeping black people down generally throughout history; as if all black's woes could be attributed to white male oppression.  I rebutted that with one word: Zimbabwe; a country where clearly their woes are of their own construction and where 'reverse racism' is practiced now too.

CTS then queried me on this and clarified in his own delightful way that he was only speaking of blacks in the US.  I then explained that whoops, my bad, I thought he was ranting about the general case.

Now, is that clear enough?

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

Zimbabwe? (none / 0) (#529)
by superbat on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 05:56:17 PM EST

How can their woes be of their own construction when they inherited the problems of old Rhodesia?

[ Parent ]
The System in America is Equal and Color Blind (none / 2) (#344)
by sellison on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:19:22 PM EST

it has been for some time now. Blacks, whites, asians, both kinds of indians, hispanics, etc. we can all go to the same schools if we are able.

This is as it should be. Getting ahead in America should be about nothing more than hard work, sacrifice, morality, and faith. And it would be if not for the liberal's attempt to perpetrate racial divisions.

They do this because the have a hold on the minorities, and they want to keep them poor, downtrodden, and government funded. This gives the liberals a solid voting block that keeps them in power. Everytime there is an election you can hear the liberals rant how the Republican candidate would take away the subsidies and leave them all on the street!

Of course, what the Republican, who is not racist and wants all Americans to succeed on an equal playing field, wants to do is give the minorities a chance to succeed and get out of the liberal created ghettos.

Now in a capitalist system, there are always going to be winners and losers, that is how the game is played. And many of the minorities come from cultures where hard work and morality are not celebrated, are not the roads to success (note that asians, who do come from a culture that celebrates hard word, have little trouble  getting aheah in modern America).

But what the liberals want to do is keep the losers in their place, so they can keep getting their votes. Rather than pointing out that the minorities need to shed their cultural 'values' that keep them poor, libs tell them to 'celebrate diversity' and hold onto their 'culture'.

Liberals are the new slave owners, the new plantation keepers, except what they want from their slaves is a vote, and their plantation is the projects and ghettos of the inner cities.

This needs to change, we need another decade or so of Republican control of the govt. to wean American minorities off of the Govt. teat and onto their own two feet. Of course this will mean the end of the liberal's the democrat party, so of course they are fighting tooth and nail with lies about our Leader George Bush's honorable military service and great victories in the war on terror.

But the American people, all of us, in all our races, we are too smart for the liberal's lies, and we will get out of this vale of sorrows with hard work, morality, sacrifice, and faith.

And let the remnants of the liberals and their lazy followers (the ones who won't work for their keep) join the Baldwins in socialst Canada for as long as the Canadians will stand for it.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

jesus listen to this nazi fuck (none / 0) (#353)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:00:22 PM EST

reality is out there, someday we hope you find it... until then, get the battle hymn of the republic out of your eardrums

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
One could take you much more seriously... (none / 1) (#359)
by esrever on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:21:26 PM EST

...if you dropped all the ad hominem, unnecessary personal attacks.

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
i'm so sorry for that (none / 2) (#389)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:24:07 PM EST

you fucktwit

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
you should be sorry for lowering the tone of (none / 2) (#420)
by sellison on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 10:01:38 PM EST

debate around here to this tit-for-tat level.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]
typical liberal (none / 2) (#397)
by sellison on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:34:49 PM EST

you can't argue my points, so as you stoop to ad hominen attacks.

Meanwhile, you are the one who is like the nazis who wants to keep minorities segregated in projects and ghettos, living off the perpetual government slave wages of welfare.

We republicans want them to go to Church, stay off drugs, and get jobs so they can start changing their lives for the better!

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

If the American system is colour blind, (none / 2) (#375)
by Kiyooka on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:28:09 PM EST

How come all your presidents have been white?

How come 9 out of 10 congressmen are white?

How come 9 out of 10 CEOs are white?

How come, whenever there's a crime in the newspapers, they only mention the race if the person is non-white?  You always hear "a 26-year old black convict is wanted for..." but never "a 26-year old white convict is wanted for..."

Asians have done well though.  But only asians from rich places like Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.  Curious, isn't it?  This, while poorer places such as Thailand and Vietnam are only good as vacation retreats for rich white guys to indulge in the child prostitutes.

There is no such thing as "America".  "America" is far too complicated to make a general statement about.  But we can make statements about the 300 or so rich white guys running it:  they're not colour blind.  They see only wealth:  gold and green.

When you look at the flag, are you seeing, feeling, and thinking what the creators of America wanted you to see?  Or is the flag and the anthem an instrument of indoctrination?  If it's a tool for indoctrination, then whom does the resulting unity and consent among the citizens serve?  Do you really believe that its something like "glorious freedom of democracy" or "liberty and justice for all"?

Such a powerful homogenizing of mind and attitudes among the entire populace of such a powerful country is scary when you think about it.  That unity needs constant maintenance by the government to endure.  From my trips to the US, I can't help but notice that you have flags every couple of blocks.  Who is reminding you to remind yourself where your allegiance MUST lie? ("either with us, or against us...")

The government is run by people.  People are just like you, me, and the next stranger.  Just because they lead the country doesn't mean they're good people dedicating their lives to the greater good.

So next time you hear that anthem and see that flag, think:

Whom does it serve?

Whom do you serve?

[ Parent ]

Non of these questions are useful (none / 2) (#396)
by sellison on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:31:20 PM EST

to the poor person of any race trying to get ahead.

He can ponder them until he finds himself on the gutter, weeping into his bag of drink, about how unfair it all is.

Who does it serve: it serves you, if you work hard, stay off drugs and drink, save your money, marry one person and stay with them, spend the time it takes to raise your kids well, and go to church and listen to your paster/preacher.

Do all that from a young age and you will get at least well off if not rich.

Vote republican and stay away from dems who want to you waste your time trying to answer questions that have no answers and just make you feel bad. Hang out with republicans, we're all getting rich together, don't hang out with dems all they do is complain, give addictive handouts, and chase your daughers.

Sit around trying to figure out "who does it serve" will only lead to losing your job, losing your family, losing your home, and ending up on the street or in jail.

Stick with questions that have answers and listen to the republicans who tell you the truth, and you will be fine.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

well, you have your priorities straight (none / 0) (#414)
by Jazu on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:27:58 PM EST

1. Don't become a crack whore. 2. Don't rack up $20k in debt. 3. Don't neglect your kids. 4. Rebublicans are good, Democrats are evil. Great advice, I'm sure.

[ Parent ]
Not don't (none / 2) (#419)
by sellison on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:59:23 PM EST

If you've started doing any of these things

1. stop being a crack whore. 2. start paying off $20k in debt. 3. Stop neglecting your kids.

While the dems promote the idea that you are a crack whore, you are a bankrupt, you are a child neglecter, Republicans point out that these are choices. Dems want to make it easy for people who have made bad choices to stick with them, and in return vote democrat from the ghetto. Republicans want people to stop making bad choices and to fix the effects of their bad choices, get out of the ghetto, and vote Republican.

4. Rebublicans are good, Democrats are evil. Great advice, I'm sure.

Now your getting it!

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

"Choice". (none / 0) (#472)
by Kiyooka on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:33:25 PM EST

I can only say this:  that unless you've lived a life on the streets with subtle racism against you everywhere, its very difficult to appreciate how much it affects you.

Imagine you're black and your grandfather grew up in a society where people made comedies about black people walking into doors because they forgot to open them (true, btw).  If he even looked all the way up to look at the horizon or a street sign, he would be beaten up/spit on/sworn at for being "uppity", because blacks were only supposed to look at the ground.  Now the grandfather obviously has low self-esteem and no education or money (nobody wants him anywhere because they believed back then that "the only good nigger is a dead one").  His children (your dad) are all gonna grow up poor with hardly anything to eat, no education (and if you go to school you get beat up every day and all the white teachers constantly remind you "they have an eye on you").  If a kid thinks "screw this" and quits school, I wouldn't blame the kid at all.  He's so young, and he doesn't realize how important education is for him.  So the kid only has 3 choices to stay alive:  welfare, small crime, or joining a gang (or all three).  This cycle is passed on to his kids, and so the cycle continues.

My whole point of this mini-story is that choice is a complicated thing:  obviously I would always choose education and hard work over a life of crime, but that's how I see it.  The kid would only see a choice between joining a family and having self-esteem (other black gang members will accept him and understand his anger and frustration at society) or joining a society that rejects him, constantly reminds him he's better off dead, and gives him virtually no chance of employment (outside of zero-trust demeaning jobs serving white people, because not even ***McDonald's*** would hire a black kid from the ghetto with poor english and ripped dirty clothes over a "nice clean polite white kid from the British properties").

By the time the kid realizes how important school is for his future, he's 20 with no education or money except from crime.  By then, school is not a choice, even if you save enough money for college from crimes:  gangs close the door behind you.  If they find out you're taking classes, it means you want to leave the gangster's life, which means you want out of the gang.

Which means they kill you.

So to recap:  yes, if you play all your cards right, stick to your principals, and don't give up, you might be able to win the system.  But could you say the same if your deck was totally rigged for life from the beginning and you only realized it after you lost everything?

[ Parent ]

3 stooges (none / 1) (#548)
by sellison on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 04:31:53 AM EST

if step'n'fetchit is an excuse, then every white kid has the same one, as there have been many more movies made about stupid white people than stupid black people.

It is too bad that many people need to see some poor sod hurt himself to laugh, but it makes no sense as an explanation for why minorities fail to succeed.

In fact, it reveals the typical liberal racism: poor minority is not as strong as white person, so of course they fail when they see a movie about stupid minority person even though we don't call Animal House the reason white kids fail.

See, white kids who fail are told the truth: they didn't try hard enough.

So long as liberals keep telling minority kids its ok to fail because someone once made a movie about a stupid minority, or other superficial stuff the same liberals expect white kids to rise above, we won't have an equal society.

Republicans on the other hand, not being racists, don't see bad movies or being born poor as an excuse for minorities to fail, we tell minorities the truth: work hard, stay off drugs, go to Church, and things will work out fine.

And don't listen to liberal lies coming from Hollywood, its mostly propaganda to keep the minorities stuck in the ghetto and voting for the people who tell them it's not their fault and there is nothing they can do about it.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Major inconsistency in representation. (none / 0) (#593)
by Kiyooka on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 03:38:10 PM EST

First, let me say this important point:  the media can make or break any politician's career in a day.  All of the media of the US is controlled by a couple of corporations, all chaired by a different very rich and very powerful white male. One would be impossibly naive and very unrealistic to assume they are apolitical and free from alliances.

Now, wrt movies:  yes, there are dumb white guys and smart white guys in movies now, as there are dumb minorites and smart minorities.  But I'm talking about 50 years ago.  Back then, there were also smart and dumb white guys, but there were only dumb minorities.  Black guys always walked into doors because they forgot to open them:  it was a stereotype.  They were never smart.  Only dumb.  And watch the "classic" Breakfast at Tiffany's:  there's only one asian to show people how asians are, and he has fake overlarge buck teeth (stereotype) and over-sized glasses(stereotype) who only walks by waddling(stereotype). Whenever he wakes up he hits his head on the lantern right above his bed because he's stupid (stereotype).  And when he talks in his exaggerated asian accent, he drools(both stereotypes).  Back then, these were the only asians you'd see in movies.  Never an asian as just a regular guy, much less a smart person.

Have you ever seen videos of when the KKK were in power?  Sorry, I can't find the reference, but at their peak several decades ago, there were hundreds of thousands of them standing in a large rally near the Washington monument, all wearing white cloaks and hoods.  The government had no problem with that.  Free speech, right?  But I'll bet you anything that if 50 years ago hundreds of thousands of blacks started an anti-white rally at the Washington monument, the army would have been called in, riots squads would have come, tear gas pumped out, and countless arrests, beatings and deaths would have occurred.  The government would have called it "perpetuating hate", "disturbing the peace" and much much more, I'm sure.

The racism here is quite obvious, I hope you'll agree.  Now keep in mind that the children who grew up in that culture are now the ones chairing positions of power.  Now, I'm not saying that all Republicans are good/bad, and I'm not saying that all Liberals are good/bad.  These political labels are more like association names than belief systems.  There's an infinite number of belief systems that people can choose from--far too many to describe with only 2 labels.  That'd be like a black/white monitor showing a rainbow.  I'm only saying that some people are heroes; some are villains using politics to pretend to be heroes; some aren't purposefully trying to be evil, they just grew up in a racist culture and are following the belief system they were taught;  either way, we have all 3 kinds of people (and much much more) mixed into all places in the US government and society in general.  But, for now, the past generation is still alive and is in power, so there are still a lot of racists in power.

[ Parent ]

Excellent. (none / 2) (#365)
by Kiyooka on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 06:26:31 PM EST

No, I'm not being tongue-in-cheek.  Thank you, CircleTimesSquare, for having the guts to put yourself out there and say what's bloody obvious.

I'm saying this as a Chinese Canadian who's faced racism pretty much all my life, having grown up in a suburban prairie town.  Nothing pisses me off more than when people think racism is a thing of the past.  Consider:  only in 1959 were asian people in Canada finally able to vote.***1959***  Before that:  anti-asian race riots, lynching blacks, making fun of asians in movies (see the fucking classic "Breakfast at Tiffany's"), and a shitload of other crimes against humanity.

Now, almost 50 years later, 99 out of 100 government politicians and ceos are white.  99 out of 100 mixed-race couples in movies are a white guy with a minority girl.  Asians in the media are portrayed as either old wise monks or young nerdy geeks.  Never as a fucking regular man, like 99% of guys are.  The racism is still systematic.  I mean, get real:  the CEOs and other powerful folk grew up in a racist environment.  Now that they're 50-70 years old and powerful, do you think they'll have changed their childhood values?  Masked it maybe, but not changed it, so they hire only whites.  That's life, and anybody asserting otherwise should climb out of the dreamcave in their mind.

So, the government tries to implement diversity quotas to even things up.  But lo and behold:  the whites call these quotas ANTI-WHITE DISCRIMINATION!  And they call for justice.  Justice!  HOLY MOTHER FUCKING GOD OF CHRIST!!!  The infuriating irony of that pisses me off to no end.  Despite all the shit of the last couple of decades, and the ***existing*** systematic racism against minorities, they call these quotas RACISM!  This shit infuriates me to no end, so I can empathize with you CircleTimesSquare for being so rant-ish.  I guess I"m a little calmer cuz I've written lots of essays on this before.

Anyway:  what this guy says is correct and true.  Yes, these diversity quotas may be unjust for the occasional white, but as an overall *SYSTEMATIC CHANGE*, over time it will increase equality and justice in society.  It is only you shallow stupid Joe 6-pack homophobic wrestling/monster truck trailor trash fans and you suburban consumer culture Martha-Stewart Walt Disney soccer-moms with your 2.5 kids and your SUVs who would disagree.

The rest of the people have seen the reality beyond their manicured lawns and high hedges.

Anyway, have a nice day.

[ Parent ]

ARE YOU READING THE ABOVE???? (none / 2) (#388)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:23:30 PM EST

READ THE ABOVE POST YOU STUPID RICH WHITE SUBURBAN FUCKS

you rich white suburban assholes understand idealism and truth, but you don't understand reality and fairness

all of your opinions amount to an 8th grader's understanding of reality

you have no shame, no decency, no sense of fairness, no sense of history, fucking assholes!!!!

go home you rich white suburban mother fuckers... get in your suvs... go to starbucks, order your venti fuckacino, sit down and write an essay, about the difference between truth and idealism, and reality and fairness

ok, you stupid one dimensional fucks???

then maybe you can graduate to a 9th grader's level of understanding about the issue of affirmative action

the only thing you guys have going for you is your numbers: you're a big dumb herd of buffalo, no understanding, dim bulbs each and everyone of you... all of you are a simple big dumb obstacle to progress

god i hate you rich white suburban fucks and your simplistic dim bulb thinking and your utter complete lack of comprehension and understanding


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Well, don't hold back.... (none / 0) (#494)
by Kiyooka on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 06:42:37 PM EST

tell us how you really feel.  :D

[ Parent ]
Hmmm... (none / 1) (#422)
by aboutnothing on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:07:30 PM EST

"so we stick with quotas for the time being. ok? do you understand there is a problem? do you understand there needs to be a fix? what simple fucking facts can you not digest so far einstein?"

So in other words... Two wrongs will make a right. Correct?

[ Parent ]

*I* deny that this needs to be fixed. (none / 0) (#442)
by fae on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 02:05:15 AM EST

Please tell me why race matters, and then maybe I'll care about these meaningless statistics of one meaningless group having more [thing] than another.

You have divided up society into whites and minorities, but any findings about these groups has no relevance. Why? Because race is irrelevant.

If you think it's UNFAIR to the minorities, I'll tell you what's more generally unfair: Having poor parents. Who the fuck cares which arbitrary group they belong to? They are poor because they are poor.

Re: past discrimination, there may be some validity. And yet, I don't really give a fuck if they're black or blue, I seem to instead care about the discrimination.

As a third generation immigrant and member of the English-Swedish-Austrian-Prussian minority, I feel that I am above all this racist shit, and at the same time I feel obligated to argue it.

To recap, I'd like any rebuttal to first make me care about race. ie. First make me into a racist, or else I won't listen to your bullshit.

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
[ Parent ]

Race matters, but not "race". (none / 1) (#475)
by Kiyooka on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:56:52 PM EST

By that I mean that "race" is just another illusion because all people are really just the same.  But, if we *do* play along and pretend "race" is a real thing, we see an enormous segregation of education and money.

It would be preposterous to suggest that this huge statistical aberration among 200 million is due to chance.  There is only one real answer:  racism.  This isn't hard to believe (though I'm encouraged that you find it hard to believe because it means racism is slowly disappearing) when you consider that non-Caucasians have been discriminated against up until only a decade or two ago.  The people who grew up in a racist society and became a boss at 30 will still likely be racist at 50.  It's all too easy to hide racism:

- sorry sir, but "I don't think you have the necessary experience" or "the relevent skills"
- we never recieved your resume, it must have been lost in the mail"
- "we don't think you fit into our corporate culture"
- "we think you lack the necessary soft skills"
- "we've cancelled the position" (how do you find out they lied?)
- or, simply, (and most of the time) "thank you for your interest, but we've already chosen a candidate".

It's too easy to make excuses for not hiring people.

I would argue that these quotas are there to rebalance an imbalanced system.  This imbalance, this enormous statistical aberration, can only be seen when you divide people into race categories, which means that something fishy is happening wrt race -- which is, obviously, racism.

Also, I agree that "race" shouldn't matter, but I also think that if analysis using "race" as a tool provides insight, then I think you should consider "race".  It doesn't automatically make you a racist unless you value certain races above others;  it only gives you another perspective and insight on society.

[ Parent ]

Ahhh, circletimesquare.... (none / 0) (#447)
by QuantumFoam on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 05:57:46 AM EST

The pretentous serial troll. The "I live in New York, I am so fashionable" coffee house goon that must vulgarly enlighten us dimwitted fucks with his deep knowledge of race relations.

Guess what? Quotas don't help the situation. Blacks and minorities are accepted as equals in the business world. Any corporation is so afraid of the allegation of institutional rascism that they ben over backwards to be fair, or more than fair, in their hiring practices. Ditto for schools, which are havens for progressive thought. Now insert random angry rants at some rhetorical whipping boy, and be nice and profane, and you have custom-made counterarguement for circletimessquare. Mine is a bit more thought out and throroughly backed up with real world evidence.

Oh yeah, before you start accusing me of being a Republican/rascist/homophobe, I will say am no Republican, nor a rascist or a homophobe. I think we should strive for complete equality as far as legal matters are concerned, but the government should not meddle with social problems, it will always make them worse.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Argh!!!! Who CARES?!?! (1.40 / 5) (#253)
by Fantastic Lad on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:38:21 AM EST

Tell me something important.

University isn't what it once was. For MOST kids attending, it's primary purpose is to program students with bullshit ideas and lock them down into debt so that during their young adult/powerful years, they are rendered little more than wage slaves who can be penalized by debt collectors if they stop on the tread mill to take a breath and think for half a moment.

Of COURSE racial minorities are going to get breaks. They don't need to be enslaved through the schooling process. They're already 'properly' shackled down in American society for not being white. The black kid who gets the juicy student grant? Oh, don't you worry your jealous little head; he'll get good and hurt upon entering the business world. I mean, YOU wouldn't hire him, would you?

Sheesh.

Honestly. Get beyond the fighting over table scraps and look to see what the masters of the house are really up to. Act like a dog, stay a dog.

-FL

Aye, comrade (none / 1) (#254)
by bugmaster on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:02:22 AM EST

Proletariat of the world, unite ! You have nothing to lose but your chains ! The means of production belong to the workers !

Seriously, though... Why does everything have to be part of some giant conspiracy with you ?
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]

Why does. . . (none / 0) (#293)
by Fantastic Lad on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:35:25 AM EST

Proletariat of the world, unite ! You have nothing to lose but your chains ! The means of production belong to the workers !

Cute. So you object to open source software, I take it?

Seriously, though... Why does everything have to be part of some giant conspiracy with you ?

Don't be silly. Not everything is part of, 'some giant conspiracy'. But when we're talking about education and money. . .

I mean, come on! Those dots aren't going to connect themselves.

What's your debt load at the moment? What are you planning to do if the dollar massively drops in value, you lose your job, but your bank still wants regular minimum payments at the old dollar value?

Still laughing? Keep it up.

-FL

[ Parent ]

Destroy the world of oppression ! (none / 0) (#298)
by bugmaster on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:08:49 PM EST

Cute. So you object to open source software, I take it?
How is this relevant in any way ?
I mean, come on! Those dots aren't going to connect themselves.
Uh, and apparently you aren't going to connect them for me, either ? What's the matter, run out of invisible ink ?
What's your debt load at the moment?
I have a couple hundred bucks on my credit card bill (it takes the bank 2-3 days to transfer them the funds to pay off the bill), and I think I owe $5 to my buddy for a Dennys breakfast. But then, I am clearly part of the oppressive white educator elite conspiracy, so this is just the exception that proves the rule, right ?
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]
Oppression, regression. (none / 0) (#446)
by Fantastic Lad on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 05:29:31 AM EST

How is [open source software] relevant in any way ?

Precisely my point. Until you can grasp the fundamentals, perhaps you should avoid making smarmy and derogatory wise-cracks about worker's revolutions and such. The issue of who owns the means of production, (and charges 'licensing' fees), has never gone away. --If, for instance, SCO gets its way, then every Linux user on the planet is going to have to pony up a few hundred bucks just to continue working.

Uh, and apparently you aren't going to connect [the dots] for me, either ?

Uh, you lazy ass. Why should I? You make it sound like I owe you something. Your level of awareness is entirely your problem. If you gave the impression of actually wanting to learn then I'd be happy to network and thus we could help each other. But that's not what I'm getting from you.

I have a couple hundred bucks on my credit card bill (it takes the bank 2-3 days to transfer them the funds to pay off the bill), and I think I owe $5 to my buddy for a Dennys breakfast. But then, I am clearly part of the oppressive white educator elite conspiracy, so this is just the exception that proves the rule, right ?

Oh, please.

Though, yes, actually, you are the exception and congratulations are in order. Last time I checked, American credit card holders carried an average debt of over $8,000. And that's just on plastic. Student loans, personal loans, car loans, and mortgages are another issue. I live in a college town, and the only people under the age of 30 who aren't leaving school with between $20,000 to $30,000 in student debt are kids with rich parents. This is the norm, and this is what I'm talking about here.

Unless you are blind, you will have noticed that the U.S. economy is on the verge of total collapse. This happened once before. The Great Depression, (which also happened just before a major World War with a fascist government), caught debtors flat footed. Numerous of today's most powerful financial institutions got that way by foreclosing on bankrupt property holders, and then selling that property during the rebuilding of the nation. An almost identical situation is primed and ready to go once again. A few people believe that they are going to get very, very wealthy from the coming collapse, and if things go as some predict, then they certainly will.

Now if you had the foresight and management skills to avoid slipping into massive personal debt, then you succeeded in dodging a very common trap. You should be wary, however, of letting yourself believe that there is no issue simply because you happen to not affected by it.

And please. You seem to like throwing the word, "Conspiracy!" around in a derogatory and ridiculing manner. That's old and tired, pal. If you don't like to observe and to think, (as seems to be the case,) then that's fine, but please don't try to stop others through such Jr. High bullying tactics. It's cheep and it doesn't work.

-FL

[ Parent ]

Regarding the UW bake sale (3.00 / 7) (#261)
by khaladan on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 06:22:28 AM EST

As the article mentioned, there was a bake sale sponsored by the UWCR at the University of Washington. Since I go to the UW and know all about the bake sale (including seeing the somewhat violent end to it), I want to comment on the assertion that it was "infantile and ineffectual". Infantile, perhaps, but it was most certainly not ineffectual, although perhaps not in the way the UWCR intended. The bakesale did nothing short of igniting debate on the subject of affirmative action on campus. The student newspaper, The Daily, had letters to the editor and articles regarding it for weeks. It is still mentioned now.

I'm supportive of this scholarship stunt (2.00 / 6) (#270)
by phred on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:28:30 AM EST

The more that neocons are painted as reactionary white pride racists, the better for society in general.

Change the whole system (1.25 / 4) (#271)
by Cackmobile on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 09:30:47 AM EST

Why not make University partialy gov funeded like it is in most parts of the world. This is one major problem with the US. Here in oz i paid about $5000 per year with the gov picking up the rest.

Lots of reasons (none / 1) (#279)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 10:57:43 AM EST

One is that we use a system of state schools; lots of the biggest and best schools in the country are entirely (depending on how you measure it) funded by the state governments.  The University of Texas, for example, is a great university funded and controlled by the State of Texas.  State schools give enormous tuition reductions to state residents.  Like any price control, that just leads to even more scarcity, making admissions an even more difficult process.

Another reason, and I'm just thinking out loud here, is that the sheer number of private universities would absolutely swamp the state and federal governments.  They're sort of publicly funded, through some public scholarship efforts, but there's just not enough tax money to make all the universities significantly public.

Finally, lots of schools don't want public involvement.  Bob Jones University, where Bush kicked off his campaign, was a segregationist institution for a long time (and still forbade interracial dating and marriage among students when Bush was there, I think).  Public funding can't go to segregationist schools,* so BJU needed to be entirely private to realize its good Christian dream of pure races.

*  They actually got some federal funding, in a legalistic sense, by taking advantage of a charitable tax exemption.  Ronald Reagan led the effort to defend that exemption against the move by "activist" courts to deny charitable exemptions to segregationist institutions, but, thankfully, he failed.

[ Parent ]

Something to be noted (none / 0) (#337)
by mcc on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:11:50 PM EST

The states can't even afford to subsidize colleges to the small extent that they are. I go to Purdue University and when the state started having fiscal problems around the time of the dot-com crash, the first thing the state cut in its budget was the funding to universities. Various things the University had planned for this time have suffered as a result.

Something not particularly important but interesting is that the bulk of the University's money already comes from the [significantly larger] tuition of out-of-state students. One of the responses of the University to the financial crisis it suffered when their state funding suddenly dropped was to increase tuition prices in such a way that the ratio paid by out-of-state to in-state students increased.

I suppose where I am getting at with all this is that America can't fund universities the way Europe does because Americans really, really hate paying taxes.

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

i know (none / 0) (#452)
by Cackmobile on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 08:41:41 AM EST

Its weird. Sure I hate paying tax but I don't mind so much when I am getting health and education in return.

[ Parent ]
hate ... paying ... tax ... (none / 0) (#544)
by syadasti on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 01:04:14 AM EST

I hate paying tax but I don't mind so much when I am getting health and education in return.

I coulda sworn there was a minimum age requirement to sign up for k5, but I guess I was wrong...

"May your chains rest lightly upon you..." --Samuel Adams
[ Parent ]

Agreed (none / 0) (#453)
by Cackmobile on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 08:42:36 AM EST

of course the Universities would have to go through some screening and not all of them would make it. WE have private unis here in oz as well.

[ Parent ]
Luxuries (none / 3) (#300)
by NoBeardPete on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:18:09 PM EST

Much of what people study at a University is, in effect, a luxury. Someone who studies poetry probably does so mainly because it enriches their own life. While spending four years of your youth and over a hundred thousand dollars on personal enrichment may seem worthwhile for some (those with an especially keen passion for poetry, and those who already have plenty of money, I suppose), it's not the kind of thing that it's appropriate for the public to heavily subsidize.

Some fields of study may be more appropriate for public subsidy. Nurses and teachers are chronically in short supply, to everyone's detriment. It might therefore make sense for the public to pick up part of the tab on nursing or education programs.

By having a public subsidy for schools, you give people more of an incentive to attend school, by removing some of the cost. This will result in more people attending school. It can easily result in too many people attending school, in programs that don't really make any sense. This both wastes public money and skews the labor market.


Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!
[ Parent ]

The arts.. (none / 1) (#302)
by cosmokramer on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:36:30 PM EST

Are you suggesting that the arts are something that only enriches the participants life? A poet is only enriching his own life? So my reading a book of poetry by a great poet who was publicly educated is an unnecessary luxury? Or reading a book fiction or non-fiction if it had questionably "purposeful" intent would be a luxury? I think this is a big problem with the "private" world. Everything outside of growing the vested interests of the commercial sector is a luxury that the common man does not deserve. That's bullshit. I'm glad I live in Canada where they still attempt to let us have subsidized education even if it is fading :(

[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 2) (#309)
by NoBeardPete on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:14:49 PM EST

I'm not really suggesting that, no. Not everyone who studies the arts at a University also produces art. Not all poetry majors are poets.

Look, people study a lot of stupid shit in school. I don't think it's a good idea for the government to make a general policy of subsidizing any and all fields of study that any university ever decides to offer a program in. Most university programs now are quite defensible, but if nothing else, you should see that there's no guarantee this will continue to be true forever.


Arrr, it be the infamous pirate, No Beard Pete!
[ Parent ]

Learning to think (none / 1) (#451)
by Cackmobile on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 08:40:44 AM EST

University is not a job training centre. Its to teach people to think. I did eng/cs and as much as I hated the arts students we need more people who can't think in the world

[ Parent ]
Book learning makes you stupid. (1.50 / 6) (#292)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:33:52 AM EST

Why is it most so-called book learned white folk and certainly all computer science graduates are dumber than your average cocktail waitress?

In my real-life experience, I know very few white folk, and certainly no computer science graduates, smarter than your average cocktail waitress, so, honestly, if we ignore cultural cant about who's supposed to be "smarter" than who, I don't think it would make a shred of difference to "knowledge" if a student's intellectual fitness were judged according to the shape of his or her buttocks.

Then all the negroes would attend prestigious institutions of higher learning, where they would be trained to amass vast wealth and power commensurate with the fetching qualities of their firm round ghetto butts. Then we'd have to pass affirmative action laws for those people with flat asses. Then the black man would get mad because damn it why should some lame ass whitey get preferential treatment - that's just ass discrimination!

You just can't win.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

I've noticed... (none / 0) (#301)
by trimethyl on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:25:01 PM EST

That the so-called intelligence tests rarely measure anything beyond the ability of someone to solve certain types of problems. I have yet to see an intelligence test which can accurately gauge true intelligence - that is, the rate at which someone learns to solve a problem unlike any they've ever seen before.

Most intelligence tests do not measure a person's ability to apply what they've learned to problems beyond what they have been formally taught to solve. For instance, I happen to know of a great many CS majors who, if given a stack of folders and told to sort them, would use a linear insertion sort, or no algorithm at all. But you can put them in front of a computer, and they'll code a merge sort.

That's not intelligence. That's knowledge. Intelligence is more of an attitude toward problem solving than anything else....

I've scored highly on IQ tests in the past by simply using this algorithm:

  1. Where have I seen this before?
  2. What other problems were similar?
  3. What would happen if I did this?
  4. What are all of the possible solutions; how would I eliminate the incorrect solutions?
Almost all IQ tests involve relationships between two or three entities or concepts. Using this algorithm, a person could brute-force a perfect score on every IQ test I've ever taken. The only exceptions would be those participants who either did not understand the meanings of the words used, or who lacked the mathematical ability to actually compute the answer.

When it comes down to it, the so called "IQ" test is merely a morally defensible way of choosing which students are going to hold the higher paying jobs. A lottery would be just as fair, but that would prevent the higher-paid folks from thinking that they're smarter than the others.



[ Parent ]
Too funny (none / 0) (#326)
by skim123 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:13:08 PM EST

For instance, I happen to know of a great many CS majors who, if given a stack of folders and told to sort them, would use a linear insertion sort, or no algorithm at all.

I observed this first hand. Back in grad school I graded tests (being a TA) with some of the undergrad graders. Without fail, all of the graders would start sorting this pile of 150 tests using a linear sort! I had to go over and whisper, "Think bucket sort." :-)

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
In America... (2.60 / 15) (#297)
by trimethyl on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:03:15 PM EST

There are only two races:

  1. White/Caucasion
  2. Victim

Racism hasn't gone away; just changed. Liberals tend to see an individual's race and gender rather than their character. Conservatives, OTOH, tend to look at people from the viewpoint of their character; race and gender are simply irrelevant.

Want proof? If you're white, try convincing a liberal that you aren't racist; if you're black, try to take credit for your own success.

But here's the real racism: Somehow, even though it occurred before I was born, liberals will always see me as responsible for the collective oppression of every minority since time began simply because I am white. If I agree with the liberals, then I accept blame for crimes I never committed; if I disagree, I'm called a racist. In the liberal mindset, it is impossible for a white man to be truly indifferent to a person's race. Liberals will always hold me responsible for the racial atrocities of past, present and future simply because of my skin color.

Somehow, Martin Luther King Junior's dream of a society in which "every man is judged not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character," was usurped by the liberals.

We'll never be a truly color-blind society until liberals stop telling us to look at people of a certain race or gender as victims. They aren't. Victimhood isn't hereditary - it's learned behavior. (Note that there is a subtle, yet important difference between being victimized and becoming a victim; one has to do with circumstance, the other, with character). We need to stop looking at people in terms of gender or race and instead learn to see them as human beings, with strengths and weaknesses. But unfortunately, if I worship in a "black" church (I'm white), I can't escape liberals telling me how "progressive" I am for "breaking down racial barriers". As if there were any racial barriers between Christians to begin with. As if the church should consider themselves blessed because a white man showed up for worship.



On the web... (none / 0) (#305)
by NateTG on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:47:38 PM EST

There are only two races:

1. Trolls

[ Parent ]

and... (none / 1) (#325)
by Lenny on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:10:20 PM EST

2. Fish that bite!


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
It seems... (none / 0) (#476)
by trimethyl on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:57:59 PM EST

That trolling comes naturally to me. Even when I don't intend to. I've come to realize that anyone who says anything provocative is considered a troll; if their arguments are rational, a good troll.

Either you post something bland and meaningless, or you get called a troll. Granted, some really do troll, but in any forum where controversial issues are addressed, you'll always have those that:

  • Post thoughtful comments from a slightly different perspective...
  • Repeat the same tired arguments over and over, i.e. "Guns don't kill, people do," and "It's the economy, stupid!" and "In the wake of 9/11..." and "..violated constitutional rights..." etc.
  • Troll.
Generally, I see more of 2 and 3 around k5 than 1.

As an oft-accused-troll, if I gave any advice for posters, it would be:

  • Don't post a comment unless it contains at least one of the following terms:
    • Orwellian
    • privacy rights
    • constitutional rights
    • ... aftermath of 9/11... (and its variants)
    • Weapons of Mass Destruction
    • police state
    • war on [drugs, poverty, terror, etc...]
    • Patriot Act, DMCA, copyright, public domain, etc..
    • freedom of speech
    • constitutionally protected...
    • oppression
    • racism
    • Palestinian
    • Pro-israeli
    • religious dogma
    • bigot, racist, terrorist, or any other perjorative.
    • god (when referring to the existence of...)
    • Anti-American
    • fascism, nazism, or any other "oppressive" former governmental system.
  • In addition, use one of the following posting templates, where X is replaced with the topic discussed:
    • "Who can really say that X (is)/(is not) wrong." Imply that there's something wrong with the status quo without ever explaining why. For a bonus, offer an impractical or offensive solution to the issue and imply that your detractors are either stupid, uncaring, or both.
    • Make up statistics to bolster your point.
    • Repeat what is already well-known about an issue X. Then extoll how wrong X is. Then offer an anecdote about someone involved in X, and how messed up things have become. Be careful not to offer a solution requiring thought beyond "Y should stop doing X." Better yet, don't offer a solution at all.
    • Relate a personal anecdote about X which is atypical.
    • Concentrate on the atrocities committed by group Y regarding topic X without ever explaining the context. Downplay or omit entirely the atrocities committed by group Z to group Y beforehand.
    • Blame an entire nation, social class, ethnic group, religious organization (or religion in general) for the actions of a few of their members. Bonus points for implying that someone excommunicated/censured/imprisoned/disciplined by their respective class is indeed representative of that class. Example: blaming pro-life groups for shooting abortion doctors, when they neither approved of the actions of the shooters, nor were they affiliated with them.
Post according to the guidelines above, and there will be no danger of inspiring thoughtful reflection on k5 topics.

Trust me, folks, we know. Every K5'er knows about the WMD's, the aftermath of 9/11, the Orwellian police state that's just around the corner... It gets old, quick. There's no need to repeat it. Instead, if you're going to post, offer something beyond what has already been said on the topic. Yes, you might get modded as a troll, but at least you inspired people to think about why they hold the views they do.



[ Parent ]
liberal != reparationist (none / 0) (#378)
by ryanamos on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:44:37 PM EST

Um, you seem to confuse "liberal" with "Nation of Islam." I've never heard any mainstream liberal blame whites for the current situation of blacks. Nobody is asking for reparations. Nobody is blaming you (or anyone) for the racial inequalities that exist. But they do exist. Ignoring them won't make them go away, we tried that. And it's pretty easy to see WHY they exist. Affirmative action is a solution to this.

But here's where I'm agreeing with you: affirmative action doesn't work. But racial barriers do exist and they're not gonna go away any time soon. Honestly, I think we're eventually just going to fuck our differences out anyway, but in the meantime, it sucks that a 5 year old whose father is in jail and whose mother works 2 jobs just to pay the rent has to live in a crackhouse. Is his mother a person of poor character simply because she was raised in an equally shitty situation? Affirmative action doesn't work, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

[ Parent ]

Ummmm (none / 0) (#524)
by EOIAI on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 03:48:41 PM EST

I say hell no.. I wouldn't give her crap.. if the mother is stupid enough to still live in a crack house even though she was raised in that situation, she deserves jack shit. I know if I had 2 jobs and was raising my kids alone, I would do everything in my power to move away, out, gone from that situation just so my child wouldn't be in that situation. It is all the ladies fault end of story.



[ Parent ]
responsibility (none / 0) (#487)
by gdanjo on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 05:27:27 PM EST

[...] But here's the real racism: Somehow, even though it occurred before I was born, liberals will always see me as responsible for the collective oppression of every minority since time began simply because I am white. [...]
Here is a perfect example of premature extrapolation. I say that "X is responsible for Y"; given that you belong to X, you conclude that what I say is "you are responsible for Y." This is wrong. I did not say "you are responsible for Y", I said "X is responsible for Y."

Talk about playing the victim ...

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

I would agree accept... (none / 0) (#516)
by trimethyl on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 11:01:37 AM EST

I've read and experienced things which indicate just the opposite. While every liberal may not believe that whites today are responsible for the abuses of the past, those who do express their views in public and influential ways.

No, I don't like premature extrapolation. But I happen to know that there are colleges in which passing a required "diversity training" course is contingent on the student affirming that "Everyone is at least a little racist". The only debate allowed in the classroom concerns the manner in which whites are supposed to combat racism - challenging the notion that all whites are racist is specifically disallowed.



[ Parent ]
Its the other side of the coin (2.88 / 9) (#304)
by malfunct on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:46:51 PM EST

I still fail to see why a privately funded scholarship for those of the white race (what is the "white race" anyway, what country are they from?) should be considered a travesty by people who think that a publically funded scholarship for a person of color is a requirement.

Affirmative action was supposed to be the small head start to break the chain of low achievment by some minorities, unfortunately as far as I can tell its only managed to keep those minorities from achieving by affirming the victim mentality and by putting people in situations they are not ready for which sets those individuals up for a grand failure.

I think that what we need to do is truely level the playing field right now, end all affirmative action programs and heavily punish anyone that participates in race favortism of any kind. Until we stop treating races as different racism will live in one form or another.

Unfortunately this will be VERY difficult to achieve because the very people who say that they are the saviors of the minorities would be out of a job if true, race blind equality were to exist. Who would they save then? Without a victim class they don't have power, and wielding power over a group of people definced by thier race is racism.

In the end there will ALWAYS be differences in people but the goal should be to see those differences and judge them on an individual basis and not by what groups the individual is assigned to. To paraphrase (poorly, my apologies) Martin Luther King Jr., I have a dream of a world where a man is judge by the weight of his character rather than the color of his skin. To achieve that dream we must have no policies, for alleged harm or good, that judged based on race and so affirmative action must be abolished to reach that. If the white pride scholarship serves to bring that need to light then it did its job.

It's where everyone is today (2.00 / 4) (#311)
by J T MacLeod on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:18:30 PM EST

Honestly, how is this any different from what young liberals are doing today?  

Persons are people, and will do stupid things, whether conservative, liberal, or otherwise.  

They'll never understand (2.14 / 7) (#315)
by sethadam1 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:37:28 PM EST

I am white. I am Jewish.  I don't necessarilyy look it.  So most people don't know I'm Jewish until they know my name or I tell them.  

Let me tell you firsthand: if you are a white Christian male in America, you don't know shit.

Someone jokingly said below there are only two races in America, white and minority.  But they're right!  If you live in an upper-middle class sub/urban area, you probably don't even know any better.  I've lived in many places, and I can tell you, prejudice and ignorance are everywhere, and not always without reason.  In this country, we've got such expectations that we make these stereotypes real.  Black children come to learn an image of "cool" as being a gangster (thanks Tupac!), they begin to dress and act like that, then a white teen calls him a "nigger" and begins to think all blacks are criminals.  It happens.  If you think it doesn't, you're deluding yourself.  

Every minority has gone through being called nigger, kike, dyke, spic, gook, faggot, sand nigger, chink, ...whatever.  Every one of them has sat through some asshole who doesn't know any better sharing a "joke" with them.  Those people will never know what it's like to be on the receiving end.  They will never now the feeling of exclusion.  I was asked by a nice enough, college-educated guy RECENTLY if I celebrate Thanksgiving.  Thanksgiving! This is the type of ignorance minorities have to deal with.

We're too pathetic to realize that our country has, and probably will forever, be built on the tenants of white supremacy and it's too widely accepted to be changed.  Separatism may not be an answer, but it may be a welcome escape.  


What? (none / 2) (#320)
by Agent1 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:59:05 PM EST

So it's perfectly fine to segregate everyone based on whether or not they're a minority? That's crap.
I was asked by a nice enough, college-educated guy RECENTLY if I celebrate Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving! This is the type of ignorance minorities have to deal with.
How is anyone ever supposed to eliminate ignorance without asking a question? Why are you offended that he asked?


-Agent1
"Thats the whole point of the internet, to slander people anonymously." - Anonymous
[ Parent ]
Maybe (none / 0) (#323)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:07:47 PM EST

Maybe he's more offended that he was asked by a college-educated guy, who presumably should know better by now?  Less diversity means less opportunity for people to ask those sorts of questions, in primary as well as higher education.

[ Parent ]
Ignorance and Insensitivity (1.50 / 4) (#327)
by sethadam1 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:16:30 PM EST

So it's perfectly fine to segregate everyone based on whether or not they're a minority? That's crap.

Uh, no.  That was sarcasm.

How is anyone ever supposed to eliminate ignorance without asking a question? Why are you offended that he asked?

Maybe I could've said this better.  If we have college educated citizens who don't understand the difference between a religious holiday and American national holidays, we can clearly demonstrate that there is, at a minimum, ignorance abound.  Why is someone having to ask this at 26 years old?  What type of education in multiculturalism - which I'd add, is in many places, the norm - are our children receiving?

Moreoever, the background is that this was in front of a small group.  Any time anyone references your differences and isolates you from the crowd, it's unpleasant.  This goes whether you are black, Jewish, Asian, short, retarded, bald, deformed, blind, you have a speech impediment ...you name it.  

I truly believe the constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the right to not be offended, but it's not necessarily something that should be mandated by law - it doesn't body well for any society to tolerate insensitivity.

[ Parent ]

Oh come on! (none / 2) (#334)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:49:34 PM EST

I went to college in Minnesota with 2 reasonably "well educated" people who didn't realize that Canada not Iowa was on the states northern border.

Yes, ignorance does abound but "multiculturalism" is hardly a unique or even the most prevelant subject for such.

We have more stringent requirements for knowledge in "cultural sensitivity" in higher education today then we do for basic math, geography, history or even reading comprehension.

[ Parent ]

Stringent Requirements for Knowledge (none / 0) (#463)
by BuddasEvilTwin on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 10:55:02 AM EST

>I went to college in Minnesota with 2 reasonably
>"well educated" people who didn't realize that
>Canada not Iowa was on the states northern border.
>
> ...
>
>We have more stringent requirements for knowledge
>in "cultural sensitivity" in higher education
>today then we do for basic math, geography,
>history or even reading comprehension.

  Having had the privilege to live the NYC metro area the past 7 years, I have been gradually integrating confrontational behavior into my personality as I've come to appreciate the merits of being direct with other people.  

  Most people in rural and suburban areas (especially in WASPy cultures) do not confront each other directly, especially confronting someone's ignorance.  The tolerance threshold for keeping interactions friendly is VERY high and cherished like a pure virtue.  

  In other words, if your 2 reasonably "well educated" acquaintances were to admit they didn't realize New York bordered Canada while studying at NYU, your acquaintances would have been thoroughly tortured.

  If you think I'm exaggerating, then you should know that one of our new sales guys was tortured a moment ago for making insipid and clichéd observations.  I think he got the point, and I expect his banter output to plummet this week.  

  Oh, we're talking about men in their 40's, not 20-something frat boys.  

  How does this correspond with the low "cultural ignorance" threshold?  Many minorities grow up in confrontational cultures (especially Blacks and Jews) and they will not shy away from pointing out your ignorance, especially when your ignorance is complicity affecting the politics and policy surrounding THEIR communities.

[ Parent ]

Overheard at a prestigious, liberal arts college.. (none / 0) (#439)
by Elendale on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:51:08 AM EST

Actually i didn't hear it, but i know the guy from India...

Random college student: So, where're you from again?
Guy from India: I'm from [some town i can't remember off-hand] in India.
Random college student (somewhat baffled): Oh... that... must have been a long way to drive?
Guy from India: You have no idea...


---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


[ Parent ]
i'm a chink but our family celebrates thanksgiving (none / 2) (#338)
by relief on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:17:00 PM EST

you should get out more.

Your portrayal of minority intolerance throughout the united states is unjustified. Don't tell me otherwise because i'm a minority who lived in a fifth of the states in the US. White people who don't tolerate minorites ARE the minority in the US. Furthermore, most minority members are as partisan as any white folk.

----------------------------
If you're afraid of eating chicken wings with my dick cheese as a condiment, you're a wuss.
[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 1) (#376)
by strlen on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 07:30:22 PM EST

I'm Jewish, a recent immigrant (with a visible accent) and a Jewish lastname etc.., and I've never experienced ANY anti-Semitism in the United Statess, period, in person (online is a different matter, and usually it was from non-Americans in any case).

By the way, re: Thanskgiving, I'm not aware that it's a Christian holliday. My family celebrates it, as do other Jewish (also Buddhist) families that I've known. Perhaps getting angry over supposed cultural ignorance is what creates a feeling of persecution in you.

If you think the idea of someone suggesting that you may celebrate Thanskgiving is anti-Semitic, I highly suggest you avoid reading mainstream Arab media, by the way, or grafiti on the walls in any European country, for that matter.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

Backwards (none / 0) (#426)
by sethadam1 on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 11:50:55 PM EST

By the way, re: Thanskgiving, I'm not aware that it's a Christian holliday.

That's the point - it's not.  It's an AMERICAN holiday.  The fact that someone would think Jews don't celebrate it is the issue.  

I didn't post here to have people respond by saying that my experiences are invalid or that the reactions I've had are somehow a factor of my warped sense of persecution.  And I didn't call the Thanksgiving comment anti-semetic.  It's simply proof that many Christian white males are completely unaware of what goes on around them culturally, and that they usually can't understand the plea of minorities - because they GENERALLY have no similar experiences and no means of empathizing.


[ Parent ]

Hmm, I took it differently (none / 1) (#435)
by strlen on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:25:12 AM EST

I took your comment to mean you don't celebrate thanskgiving (and I believe other posters did too). My apologies.

I will also disagree with you, as most of these white Christian Americans are a minority in one form in another. Catholics have seen a long slew of prejudice against them directed by protestants, those from South of US by North.

Nor does on need to experience discrimination to be capable of expressing empathy. Don't stigmatize a whole group of people, and judge that by the virtue of their skin color and religion, they can't be emphathetic.


--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

It's about time (2.28 / 7) (#316)
by armonica on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 01:45:36 PM EST

Trolling for flames I see. Black pride is OK but White pride isn't? Why are you outraged by one and not the other? Whatever you are you should take pride in it. Don't let others belittle you and put you down. Especially if you happen to be a white male. The most discriminated against minority there is, at least in the US.

The tide is changing lib's. People are getting very sick and tired of the minority entitlements, even minorities. This is not about blacks, it is about all of the minority entitlements - black, woman, asian and so on. Lately they added homosexual to the long list of minorities (a slap in the face to the other minorities). That is because when they get into the work place others think that the ONLY reason he (when I say he, I mean either sex as in proper english) is there is because he is not a strait white male. This is especially true with many of the blacks that I know - he is "an affirmative action person." It really pisses them off because many of them worked hard for what they have.

The original post is very racist. Why should the blacks have their own fund that excludes others - that is racist. Since they have their own fund, why can't whites? We are not born with money any more than they are. There is already an over abundance of women on the campuses yet during the Clinton admin, they got a lot of money dumped on them and terminated many sports programs in the name of title IX.

Hurray for the people with the balls to stand up to the puke liberals. Expect them to sling a lot of shit at you though. Lets do it back to them, boycott their businesses and harrass them as they have the white people for decades. Belittle them and call them racist (after all, they are racist you know).

Equal protection under the law my ass. Play that race card - the libs give you all kinds of perks for that. Some blacks like Jesse Jackson use it for extortion. He says "pay me and I'll go away." He is one of the biggest racists out there. It is time to call him and that practice what it is - racism and extortion. It is apartheid for America. Whites need not apply.

If you are a white male, not even a 3.0 and a 1200 SAT average guaranteed you a place at Maryland. That was just a maybe if they had space. Today it is much higher than that. If you are black, walk right in. As long as you have a HS diploma or GED you are welcome, no matter what your gpa/sat says. Then they wonder why they flunk out and call the tests racist or racially biased. No, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. College shouldn't be grade 13 where they just pass you even if you can't read.

You must have been terribly oppressed. (none / 2) (#322)
by kmcrober on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:02:40 PM EST

Lets do it back to them, boycott their businesses and harrass them as they have the white people for decades.

My heart bleeds for all my white brothers, who have been terribly discriminated against for decades.  Please.  If you address society in ethnic terms, whites are ridiculously well-positioned.  We're less likely to be prosecuted, convicted, given heavy sentences, or executed than minorities (given the same offense), more likely to own a home or business, etc., etc., etc.  No one has ever kept us from voting, or moving into decent neighborhoods, or taking out loans.  Who, exactly, has harassed the white people?

There is already an over abundance of women on the campuses yet during the Clinton admin, they got a lot of money dumped on them and terminated many sports programs in the name of title IX.

Maybe the bogeyman (or woman) you fear is revealed in this little non-sequitor.  Once again, mostly because it makes me laugh, I'm going to link to your theory that feminists are pushing circumcision so that they can torture little boys and make cosmetics out of their foreskins.

[ Parent ]

nothing to laugh about.. (none / 3) (#335)
by nj on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 02:50:53 PM EST

Ok I signed up just to comment on this..
Maybe the way the guy expressed his opinion was a little funny, but as a matter of fact, the one-sided protection of baby girls against genital mutilation is a terrible thing. And while feminists are not "pushing circumcision so they can torture little boys" (the poster never said that, either), it is true that..
1. A 'mutilation fetish'-scene exists that can also be found on the web. There is plenty of reason to believe that some doctors have this fetish and are living it out through their profession.
2. The operation is often performed simply for profit. And the amputated organs (the foreskin, in spite of its name, is not merely skin, just like the similarly structured eyelid) work extremely well for transplantations. There are two brand names registered by companies who wanted to 'breed' large amounts of transplants out of them. They got stopped by the burst of the dotcom-bubble.
3. Feminists organizations are holding back information. I know of at least one that is fairly well-known here in Germany that knows well how damaging genital multilation is for males, but they only give out this information on request - compared to information about the consequences for women that can be read everywhere in their publications both online and offline.
This is a very important strategy that american "equity feminists" (see ifeminists.net) a working against: the attempt to transformate human problems into female problems. This is done with all kinds of topics, with genital mutilation only being one of them.

So, one could say that this strategy is indeed pushing circumcision of boys because the media have adopted the idea that it is only damaging for females. In spite of the fact that the genital organs are only dispersing between genders very late in development and thus it can be said what the equivalent of male circumcision would most likely be for girls: the removal of the inner labiae and all mucuous membrane there (this is almost exactly the same as the male foreskin) plus the sensitive "sweet spot" where they meet at the clitoris which is equivalent to the frenular delta where the little band is holding the foreskin in place (until it is torn (!) off and the area scarred during male circumcision).
Someone performing such an operation, claming to do it for hygiene or whatever, would probably end up in prison.
Either way, I think this is nothing to laugh about, people are dying of it even in western hospitals. For more info, take a look at sites like circumstitions.com..


[ Parent ]

Lied to (none / 0) (#563)
by armonica on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 02:25:50 PM EST

Indeed what you said is true and more. I was told when my son was born that he should be circumcized and all the "benefits". I didn't want to do it and they kept after me telling me I would be guilty of child abuse if I didn't because of the inevitable life threatening infections that would develop. When I learned how I was lied to and what my son went through I got sick to my stomach. I was so upset that I didn't threaten to kill the doctor instead as I would now and keep that kid under supervision to make sure no "mistake" was done.

I have even read where a female doctor did a circumcision on a 50+ year old man prior to doing a heart bipass claiming that she needed to do it for the insertion of a catheter (you don't, I have inserted one into to an intact man before). From what I understand she still has a license to practice and the state didn't put her in jail for the obvious ethics and criminal lapse that she would have been subjected to if she cut of say his hand. She couldn't do the original operation because of "complications". How come? I honestly believe it is the jewish protected group behind it. Even in their religon, they only cut about 1 cm away, not the whole thing. Much later and against their own laws they decided to cut it all away because some of the men were stretching back.

Try looking for online female mohel's. They are out there and very proud of what they do. Some of them are on 24 hour call with cell phone and pager numbers - even 1-800 numbers. They are very eager to mutilate. I wonder how they would like it if someone did it to them.

I also wonder if circumcision has something to do with the homosexuals that we have in the US. I bet it helps cause it.

[ Parent ]

White dominance? (none / 0) (#465)
by armonica on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 12:30:19 PM EST

Kmcrober - Yes, white men are positioned well. They also are bound to death by PC and law. For example say anything against a protected group - just yesterday is another example, the Colorado Coach who said that the female on the team was a very poor player (and now claims she was raped after 2 years and told no one apparently). He dared to call a spade a spade. Say anything negative (sometimes even positive as with Jimmy the Greek.. but you are not old enough to know about that) about the blacks - even though it is very true and get crucified. Whites are less likely to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced because they are less likely to commit crimes and have prior criminal records. I know I was told very early on if I commit a crime expect to get convicted with no mercy. They don't feel as if they are "owed" something that the black leaders (unfortunately) keep spouting off ("reperations" anyone?). No one has ever kept whites from voting? Short memory (I doubt you voted in 2000, your not old enough. I've been voting for decades)? Look at in Florida how they tried to stop Military absentee votes - primarily white males as an example. Could go on but I'm sure you wouldn't listen (or care). The point is that everyone at some point gets the short end of the stick. Slavery for example still exists today in Africa. Where is the white oppression there? No whites to point to. Darn, have to deal with reality again.

Bogeyman or woman? It isn't a bogeyman if it is real. If you are male, born in the US I bet you were needlessly cut and if so you cannot function correctly. You aren't even aware of it as well because you don't miss what you never had. You laugh because you are ignorant and don't want to believe. You would be a member of the flat earth people in the past (present maybe?) As for the circumcision, look at http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/ and educate yourself (and get pissed off). You might even be able to sue over your circumcision, the statute of limitations runs out quickly when you hit 18. Check into it today if you are 18. See how some women look forward (and will even hurt other women to view a bris (circumcision)) to hurting their young boys, even though in some cases they lost a boy to circumcision (complications, infection and so on). I'm surprised you found the previous post and did a link though. Maybe you can join me soon in Washington to this end:
http://www.sicsociety.org/
Don't worry, I'll shake your hand. You are welcome down here. I have nothing against you or anyone of any other race or gender. I want everyone to be equal, truly equal and take responsibility. No more bad childhood, or she is a mother and had post partum depression and so on. No, you do the crime, take the same time no matter what color or sex you are (yes, even white male). Also give credit to those who deserve it - like the WHITE firemen in NYC that put up the flag by the WTC, not the minorities they wanted to depict doing it and were no where around at the time. Yea, like that will happen.

Looks like you have a very strong bias to the left: http://bubba.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/12/8/12233/8105?pid=361#362 Offhand I'd say you have your own boogeyman or boogeymen (probably named GW Bush right now). Sit back and relax, you are one of the most protected golden children around. You will probably go far just because of your physical characteristics and where you are going to school. That is unfortunate because looking at your past postings and other material you have out there you could do a lot of good on your own merrit. You could also use what you have for bad, though you may think you are helping at the time (I hope you want to do good and not screw people). I have seen that done first hand. You need to see the left for what they are though (list of not so complementary things). Come to the right and see things for what they are, not what you are told they are.

You will probably be quick to say I'm wrong. Youth. Get back to me in 20 years. I bet you won't tell me I'm wrong then.

[ Parent ]

You have truly suffered terrible oppression (none / 0) (#473)
by kmcrober on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 01:40:23 PM EST

Your snide insinuations that I am a child or a teenager are rude, unwarranted, and incorrect.  Be on point, or get lost; if you must make ad hominem attacks, at least make them amusing.

Whites are less likely to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced because they are less likely to commit crimes and have prior criminal records.

You absolutely fail to understand the argument.  Assume two defendants - one white, and one black - with the same records and socioeconomic standing and accused of the same crime.  The black defendant is statistically more likely to be convicted on the same evidence, and will probably serve a harsher sentence.  Here's a Google IFL with some information.  (I don't vouch for the paper, I just glanced at it, but it looks like it has some basic statistics.)  The implication is of a pervasive institutional imbalance - but that hardly matters compared to the gross injustice that keeps you from saying bad things about minorities, does it?  You poor, oppressed bastard.

No one has ever kept whites from voting? Short memory (I doubt you voted in 2000, your not old enough. I've been voting for decades)? Look at in Florida how they tried to stop Military absentee votes - primarily white males as an example.

You go to extreme lengths to demonstrate how poorly you understand the arguments here.  In the 2000 elections (in which I voted absentee, albeit not military), in Florida, there was no one saying, "We need to keep whites from voting.  Let's structure the electoral system to deny their voice."  Blacks, in particular, and in our lifetimes, have been the subject of explicit legal efforts to deny them the vote on a racial basis, which is entirely different from electoral hijinks on an ad hoc basis.  I recommend outside reading on poll taxes and 'literacy' tests used, mostly in the south, to perpetuate an absolutely racist electorate.

Slavery for example still exists today in Africa. Where is the white oppression there? No whites to point to. Darn, have to deal with reality again.

When you start dealing with reality, be sure and let me know.  Who has suggested that slavery in Africa bears on affirmative action?  Who has said it is the responsibility of white Americans?  What does that have to do with the advantageous position of whites in modern America, or anything at all?  Nothing.  It's just a crass irrelevancy.

As for the circumcision stuff - yeah, I looked at the website.  Honestly, that, rather than your own arguments, is what makes me think of you as a crackpot.  The site is very, very poorly designed.  It makes me expect random quotes about the threat posed by reptile people or alien abductions.  You should probably find a more persuasive site to pimp out if you want to win converts.

If you're pissed off about your snipped willy, well, power to you.  Part of my liberal ideal is the right of self-definition, and your right to control your own body.  I also believe in liberal ideology of the right and privilege of Americans to defend their rights through the courts.  So I'm honestly delighted that you're encouraging lawsuits and an expansion of personal rights; but while I admire at least part of your methodology, I just don't give a damn about your issues.  Not even a little bit.  I function just fine, and will continue to do so regardless of the success or failure of your advocacy.  But thanks for asking.

Looks like you have a very strong bias to the left:

Sweet Zombie Jesus, I posted an article in support of affirmative action, and out of that and all the comments I've plastered on this page alone, that's the best example of my liberal bias you could find?  Here, I'll give you a better one:

Freedom!  Diversity!  Open government, secular education, tolerance, separation of church and state, international cooperation and other liberal values!

There.  A nice, strong statement of my liberal bias.  I feel clean now.

[ Parent ]

Here, let me cry for you. (none / 0) (#514)
by armonica on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 09:31:02 AM EST

kmcrober:
Calm down.... excuse me while I try to stop laughing. I bet you didn't sleep well last night. I see you are into name calling now (yea, that helps you a lot... I could call you some names too so be careful. You don't want to go there). Just for the record, my parents were married for over 25 years when they had me, so I'm not a bastard. Maybe you are (know you are but what am I... just kidding)? It is not that I didn't understand the arguments, I was trolling and I caught you. You let me get to you. Don't do that.

Just for the record you are a kid (when I say kid I mean < 25, sometimes < 30 - depends on how you look and your experience). Here are some pictures of you: http://chach-house.net/gallery/album21 That is you isn't it? Seems to be or a hell of a coincidence.

Ok, you may be right that a black may in fact be more likely to be convicted than a white person on the same evidence. Some of that may be how the defendent conducted himself in court. I think that is why Mike Tyson was convicted for example. So work to change the perception that they are predisposed towards crime. Encourage them to not do drugs, steal and do it openly (Get Jesse to do public announcement spots). Beats trying to say "lets make drugs legal." Same thing with telling blacks that they are owed something. You don't see the Hispanics or asians saying that. They are very hard workers and they do what they say they will. I have hired many different people to work for me. I'll just say that Asians and Hispanics work very hard for me. Some blacks do, many don't. Those that don't I usually get lip from.

As for me not understanding the argument, it is over white pride and a white scholarship. Not about blacks being convicted more than whites. Once again you fail to say why the scholarship is so terrible when they have scholarships for blacks and other minorities. Let them do it or abolish the other race based scholarships too. I'd say let them have their own scholarship if they want it. It doesn't hurt you or me or anyone else and we don't have to pay for it. As long as it is being used for legal purposes. Now if they wanted to start a fund to hurt someone, that would be a different matter. Being white is not a crime. Taking pride in race is not a crime.

I'll look at what else you said... The Florida voting - they didn't say whites specifically, the dem's sent memo's on how to stop Republican's from voting and it was believed that the military vote was almost all Republican's - and also white. I'm sure if they were mostly black they would have allowed it, even fought for it. As for literacy tests - there should be some way to make sure that the voter knows what they are doing. I have come across illiterate voters before and they simply filled out the ballot without help. The machine rejected it because they voted for every candidate. If the machine didn't check for that, his vote would have been thrown out - what probably happened in punch card places.

Slavery in Africa - you get back to reality. Here is a story of slavery right now - as we speak: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040218-100429-2882r.htm Many blacks seem to make believe that it is a white thing and it isn't. Fact is, if their relatives were sold into slavery (and that is a big if) it saved their life. It is slavery that is brought up often - even with the Confederate flag and "affirmative action" today. Slavery wasn't even an issue in the Civil war until it was almost over. It was an economic war.

Circumcision stuff - I'm not a crackpot. When I have gone for clearances in the past I have seen comments like "The most level headed person I've seen in years." on my chart. Maybe I'm one of the few remaining sane people out there? I have nothing to do with that site, it is just one of the many out there. I put it in mostly to get readers out there aware of the problem so something can be done about it. Recently they passed an unconstitutional law that ONLY protects females. Where is the equal protection part? It should protect both sexes or neither. Female circumcision is very rare in the US, male circumcision is universal and pervasive. BTW you think you function just fine. I used to think that too. Get the book "The Joy of Uncircumcising." In a year or two you will have a small taste of what it is like to not be circumcized (it is wonderful!). Or not, go ahead and not do something about it (at least I'm not asking you about enlarging or extending it...). At least more people are aware of it. That is all I wanted. Let the person it is being done to decide, not a doctor or parent.

"sweet zombie Jesus"??? Whoa! Just picture that! I found many pages on your liberal bias. Don't kid yourself, other people know about google too. If you know HOW to use it, it can find stuff you never thought you would find. Look at the advanced help section sometime. On the flip side, maybe I found stuff you didn't author, just as their are many many armonica's out there. I felt that kmcrober was fairly unique.

Ironically what you enumerate are all conservative ideas, not liberal. Wake up dude! Did you see the memo Kennedy sent out about shafting the Judicial nominee's? The ones that were leaked? They hate it when things are open. They make things more intollerent - with women just a look can get you in trouble now. Say anything about a group and get in trouble. The left is highly intollerent of any criticism, especially if it is true. Separation of church and state - Jefferson. That is NOT part of the Constitution BTW. It simply says the Govt. can't establish a religon. We know this because in a letter later Jefferson said he wished it were in the Constitution and he should know if it is in there or not. International cooperation - that is the conservatives. Liberals are linked with the unions who want to close our borders.

Maybe now you realize you were working for the wrong party. Don't feel bad, I used to be a Democrat too. More and more blacks are realizing that the Libs/Dem's are not their friend.
Good day sir.

[ Parent ]

You mastered the art of typing things into Google (none / 0) (#520)
by kmcrober on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 11:24:29 AM EST

I couldn't figure out what the hell you were talking about by "name calling" until I went through my post word-for-word.  If you ask me, there's a world of difference between the sarcasm of "you poor bastard" and the invective of "you bastard."  I meant the former.  If it was insulting to you, then I apologize, unless it was the sarcasm that was insulting to you, in which case that was the point.  The sarcasm, not the insult.

Actually, I don't think any of those pictures are of me.  It's my gallery, in that they're pictures that I took.  There are shots of me in that overall gallery, but not that particular one you linked to; that's some friends of mine from MIT on Halloween.  In other galleries, I'm the white guy with the beard.

So work to change the perception that they are predisposed towards crime.

Great idea.  I propose we do this by making sure more minorities are admitted into higher education, so that people will learn through greater diversity to divest themselves of stereotyped perceptions.

Beats trying to say "lets make drugs legal."

Utterly irrelevant.  No one here has proposed that.

I'll just say that Asians and Hispanics work very hard for me. Some blacks do, many don't. Those that don't I usually get lip from.

Speaking of stereotyped perceptions...

As for me not understanding the argument, it is over white pride and a white scholarship. Not about blacks being convicted more than whites.

The argument is over affirmative action, and what constitutes a useful critique of it.  The scholarship fails to be a reasonable criticism, because it doesn't address the logic or justifications for AA, among which is the argument that American society is institutionally biased against minorities.  One way to resolve that bias is to assist minorities in obtaining higher education where that bias might otherwise present and obstacle to admissions.

Let them do it or abolish the other race based scholarships too.

The result of that would be overwhelmingly white universities, which I believe would be a terribly bad thing for both minorities and the majority.  Diversity, to me, is a good thing, especially in education.

I'd say let them have their own scholarship if they want it. It doesn't hurt you or me or anyone else and we don't have to pay for it. As long as it is being used for legal purposes.

Well, I agree with that.  I think these kids are assholes, but they are free to give their money, and the money of their donors, to whomever they wish.  

Now if they wanted to start a fund to hurt someone, that would be a different matter.

As a moral matter, it's my argument that that is exactly what they're doing.  They're attempting to diminish diversity by increasing the advantages of an already advantaged majority.  Not illegal, but immoral.

The Florida voting ... As for literacy tests - there should be some way to make sure that the voter knows what they are doing.

Wow.  Wow.  I can't believe you're equating the use of legal arguments to suppress absentee ballots in Florida to the pervasive effort to disenfranchise blacks in the south.  The literacy tests we're talking about weren't intended to "make sure the vote knows what they were doing," they were structured so that only white voters could vote - in that white voters didn't have to take the test, or black voters were given impossible tests.  There was also a great deal of violence across the South for decades, including lynchings of blacks who tried to vote.  And you think the denial of absentee ballots really compares to that?

Many blacks seem to make believe that [slavery] is a white thing and it isn't.

I hope you're just a crass troll.  Slavery in America was a "white thing."  Period.  Modern-day slavery in Africa is almost entirely irrelevant to race issues in modern America, and almost never part of the debate.  Certainly not a part of this debate.  

Where is the equal protection part? ... Let the person it is being done to decide, not a doctor or parent.

Good!  Good!  Using lawsuits to expand the doctrine of equal protection is a great start.  You'll be voting Kerry by November - I'm so proud.

As for your perception of liberal and conservative ideals, I'm speechless.  I think Daniel Ellsburg would have a great deal to say on the ideology of openness, and which side of the spectrum champions it today.  For that matter, so would John Ashcroft.  As for internationalism, you are confusing free trade and international engagement.  One is the WTO and NAFTA, the other is the UN and ICC.  

A long assed reply, and it's only in small part relevant to the page.  If we're going to keep this up, let's move it to a diary or something.

[ Parent ]

Simple response I hope (none / 0) (#561)
by armonica on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 01:58:22 PM EST

Bastard comment - oh. I took it the other way and took it as a sign I had won. Usually when people resort to the name calling they have nothing else and won't admit they are wrong... but you probably already know that.

The Pix - seems to me that the picture I was looking at said it was you... I believed it. My bad? Still you are young and that was my point. In fact I argue that most college kids have no clue until they have been in the world for at least 10 years. That is how long it seems most people take to realize the liberal crap they were taught in college is - well call it what it is "crap." Professors often live in their own academic world and wonder why their theories fail in the real world. You may have already run into that. Also the blame America first profs.

The making drugs legal - true, no one HERE has proposed it, however many on the left have. I think one of the first was Baltimore's mayor Kurt Smoke. I feel it is relevent because it goes towards showing that the left thinks it can do any damn thing it wants (Yes, not just a thing, a damn thing). If the right does something even though it isn't really bad, they get shotgun pellets in the ass. I was glad to see Trent Lott go, however it shows how people drew conclusions on what he said even though he didn't say it. Throw that baby out with the bath water!

The stereotype remark - it isn't. It is based on real data. I also mention that some of them work just fine. If I have a reference for a worker I use it. If not then I rely on how they act and what they say. Seems to work well.

Next item - an issue (woo hoo)! Affirmative Action. I don't think it is clear that the white scholarship is a critique of the AA program. It certaintly doesn't hurt the other programs for minorities, they continue to do their own thing. I see no justification for AA in the first place. Colleges have standard tests, tuition and so on. Why should your color be a factor? An individual who is growing up right now is new. Do you think that say - blacks have been somehow kept back for the past 20 years? I'd argue only by themselves and that is what I alluded to earlier. I have worked for just about everyone - black, black women (I put them in a special category), asian, caucasian, even the Federal Government. It seems that everyone goes out of their way to help blacks/women everywhere I have ever been. Often before that individual is ready to take on that responsibility. So even if you think it is a commentary, it would seem to be a very valid one. AA should be abolished and even the Supreme Court put a end point to tollerating it recently.

Your comment about abolishing or allowing it - which one do you think would make mostly white universities or both? As I said before - let any group do what they want to as long as it is legal, even if it seems racist as the Black fund is. I don't think it is productive to call the people doing the white fund assholes. They are just young and probably as fed up with being hit over the head every moment with (cry for the) minority stuff as the rest of us are. After all 20-30 years ago you were considered an asshole if you wanted to help blacks. I can remember some very ugly things said in the effort to help specific groups - some of them very recently.

Your moral argument - That is the krux of what I'm talking about. A scholarship is a mechanism to help those who are poor get an education who are qualified to be there. Lib's changed that to confuse affirmative action with a scholarship and also lowered minimum requirements for admission. I say don't tear down the requirements, bring up those who are not doing as well. Headstart was a good start to that (introduced by Bob Dole (R) by the way). That was my argument about the black leaders not helping their own people, in fact they seem more interested in preserving divisiveness, racism and stupidity (i.e. legalize drugs, exthort money from companies for no good reason, I'm looking at you Jesse Jackson).

The literacy test - I am aware of how it was used in the past. That was unfortunate and did prove my point that a group was denied voting for a political purpose, just as denying white military voters. Scream disenfranchisement on one hand and work to disenfranchise another group at the same time. You seem to think one is perfectly ok and the other isn't. Notice how the left was shocked when people were protesting in Miami? The right is supposed to shut up and thake the abuse from the left. Sorry, times are changing.

Slavery in America was not just a white thing. Indentured servents - remember those. They were white people enslaved. It was also whites that freed them - Republican's I might add (Lincoln founded the Republican party you know). The Dem's wanted to keep slavery and I still argue keep them today as slaves of the Democratic party (now you vote for the Democrats... not the Eeeeevil Republicans). I have run into some that think they will be put back in chains if Republican's run the country. I wonder why they think that.

Vote for Kerry for equal protection? You must be kidding - take a closer look at his voting record (careful, it may hit you in the face as it goes back and forth). Maybe you have a good future at the Improv. I'm still laughing.... kerry for equal protection... good one. The sad thing is you probably believe it. Well PT Barnum said it well - sucker born every minute.

Yea, I haven't found a way to convey more information like a picture would. It is tough to dispell wrong ideas that are brainwashed into people from an early age. Sometimes direct experience is the only way. Unfortunately many of these issues don't lend themself to an experience like that. Shortly after we stopped fighting the British, we turned our cannons towards each other - not literally mind you until the Civil war happened.

[ Parent ]

circumcisions (none / 1) (#542)
by syadasti on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 11:28:50 PM EST

As a clipped gentile who worked a summer for a (liberal Reform) synagogue, I feel it most appropriate now to repeat the only joke I remember the Rabbi telling us staff at the temple office:

After a bris, an attendee approached the mohel and asked, "After the circumcisions, what do you do with all the foreskins?"

"Oh, that's easy," the mohel replied, "we make wallets."



"May your chains rest lightly upon you..." --Samuel Adams
[ Parent ]
A joke (none / 0) (#558)
by armonica on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 11:25:02 AM EST

Circumcision is soooo funny. Where else do we get jokes where we cut something off of someone needlessly (and to their harm, even death) and makes jokes like this? Hey, lets cut off an ear - just a little snip. Laughter. I know, lets cut the equivelent parts off of a female! A female circumcision where they don't take the clitoris. Woop! Can't do that, it is illegal in the US. You see, a handful of them were being hurt in this way so we had to protect them. Never mind that is it universally done to little boys in the US. Fuck the men, hurt them and don't even use any antistetic. If they complain - make fun of them and belittle them.

It is Male genital mutilation, child abuse and a sexual offense. Those who do circumcisions should have to register as a sex offender and get locked up for many years. For female's who do it, they should have to be circumcized as well. After all, it is just a little "snip". For jews - a female mohel is illegal by Jewish law. They are not to even be in the same room.

It is funny how you look at the "benefits" to male circumcision, they match up with female circumcision benefits. Lets protect girls and not boys.

[ Parent ]

What? (none / 1) (#342)
by redrum on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:33:00 PM EST

"Especially if you happen to be a white male. The most discriminated against minority there is, at least in the US." How is the white male a minority? Anywhere - especially in the US?

[ Parent ]
We're all minorities (none / 1) (#343)
by sellison on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 03:50:02 PM EST

except for white females, who are the majority in most of the US.

White males are the majority in Alaska, thats about it.

Anywhere - especially in the US?

There are plenty of places in the US where whites male or female, are the minority. Many places in the South and Southwest, and most of Hiwaii and Peurto Rico.

Anywhare? You don't watch the news much, do you?


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

WM a minority? (none / 0) (#460)
by armonica on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 09:51:14 AM EST

quickfacts.census.gov has quick numbers on these things. If you pull up USA you see that women outnumber men. So if you take the intersection of just a White Male then we are a minority. On another page at Census, it shows that blacks are no longer the largest miniority. Hispanics are. So we should stop listening to the blacks.

[ Parent ]
redrum (none / 0) (#461)
by armonica on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 09:52:14 AM EST

why pick redrum for a name? Redrum backwards is murder.

[ Parent ]
Not liberals! (none / 1) (#393)
by duncan bayne on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 08:28:24 PM EST

They aren't liberals!  Contemporary 'liberalism' is socialism.  See http://www.mises.org/liberal/liberalism.pdf for an explanation.

[ Parent ]
Not lib's? (none / 0) (#459)
by armonica on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 09:46:02 AM EST

Alright, if they aren't liberals then what are they? Certaintly not conservatives. They do seem to align themselves with the dem's/liberals. Your right about liberalism being socialism. The blacks affiliated themself with socialists in the first part of the 20th century. Indeed, MLK was a socialist.

[ Parent ]
Nononono! (none / 0) (#489)
by duncan bayne on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 06:09:48 PM EST

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.  What people nowadays *call* Liberalism is in fact Socialism - 'classical Liberalism' is in fact now called Libertarianism, after socialists hijacked the term last century.  Again, see www.mises.org for an explanation.

[ Parent ]
Your score: (none / 1) (#504)
by kmcrober on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 08:51:12 PM EST

+10 for referencing obscure Austrian economists.
-1,000 for using him to troll.

It's facile to prop up a tract from an economist thirty years in the ground as the basis for redefining a modern social and political camp.  You may have a technical argument for an academic political science definition of liberalism and socialism, but in the context of affirmative action, liberalism is not socialism - unless, of course, you open up the definition of socialism to useless extremes.  

What people *call* liberalism is liberalism, and what people *call* socialism is socialism.  Pimping dead Randians to redefine your opponents' terms is the most useless of arguments.  

[ Parent ]

*THEY* re-defined it (none / 0) (#573)
by duncan bayne on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 02:59:44 PM EST

It was originally called 'liberalism' - however that name was hijacked by non-liberals (usually socialists) last century.

It's our name, dammit! :-)

[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#564)
by armonica on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 02:28:48 PM EST

Your right. Communism and socialism have a bad stigma attached to them so they call themselves liberals and sometimes "progressives".

I thought it was very funny that the Republican's in CA used what was a "progressive" law - the recall law to recall an idiot of a Governor. Then they cried that it was unfair. How ironic.

[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0) (#584)
by virid on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 02:19:14 PM EST

What country are black people from? Now, what country are white people from? There's your difference. Anything else I can clarify for you??
"Religion is not merely the opium of the masses, it's the cyanide."
[ Parent ]
Sorry pal, (2.00 / 6) (#347)
by trhurler on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 04:51:14 PM EST

But given the absolutely NONSTOP bad-taste antics of their political opponents over the last few decades, I just cannot bring myself to feel the slightest tinge of concern over the admittedly rather crass nature of this stunt.

I considered trying to organize something like this when I was much younger. There are compelling motives. I don't want to be associated with your typical white pride hatemonger though, just as my black friends want nothing to do with the sort of racists who populate the modern black advocacy groups, so I chose not to do it. If it were possible to do without that aspect, I would still consider getting involved. Why? Because the simple fact is that there is NO DIFFERENCE between this and what, say, Jesse Jackson does every day of his life, and the hypocrisy of him being a hero and similar white people being considered barely better than child molesters is galling.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

differences that make no difference (none / 0) (#485)
by gdanjo on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 05:03:43 PM EST

[...] Because the simple fact is that there is NO DIFFERENCE between this and what, say, Jesse Jackson does every day of his life, and the hypocrisy of him being a hero and similar white people being considered barely better than child molesters is galling.
If we ignore history, then you're right - there is no difference. But our system of justice is based on "righting wrongs" - if you hurt someone, the law will then hurt you, after the fact. We make it a point to remember (or figure out) what happened in the past to guide what we do in the present. So where does one draw the line? How do we right the wrongs of the past without living in it and without commiting new wrongs?

The answer is that there is no way to do it in a completely fair way. That Jesse Jackson is considered a hero is simply a reflection of the suffering that his people have endured in the past, nothing more. It's not hypocricy, it's the result of the evolution of emotions that try to, irrationally, balance things out (in this case, guilt). And thank god for irrational emotions such as guilt, for without them rationality would run amok.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Bullshit (none / 0) (#509)
by trhurler on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 02:52:34 AM EST

If that were the case, then the "justice" in question would certainly have ended with the deaths of the last black people to suffer under systematic oppression. It has not. Our system of justice does NOT punish the son for the sins of the father, you see. Or at least, it isn't supposed to do so. Not that racism in the name of justice is any better than rape in the name of chastity anyway...

In the end, teaching hate and fostering or even creating racial discrimination(which is what modern black "leaders" are doing,) is not justice, and you cannot justify it by any such means.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
justice (none / 0) (#531)
by gdanjo on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 06:54:44 PM EST

If that were the case, then the "justice" in question would certainly have ended with the deaths of the last black people to suffer under systematic oppression. It has not. Our system of justice does NOT punish the son for the sins of the father, you see. Or at least, it isn't supposed to do so. Not that racism in the name of justice is any better than rape in the name of chastity anyway...
When I talked about "justice" I meant it in the general sense. The official system of justice - law - certainly does not propagate punishment through the ages.

But other forms of "justice" do - history, emotion, association, ethnicism, are all forms of "keeping a grudge" to ensure that the balance is, eventually, restored. Look at Israel - it was formed as restitution for Hitler's crimes. Justice is more than just law.

I do agree that AA has failed, largly due to the successful debunking of it by angry white people. What these angry white people do not understand is the natural tendencies of any injustice to level itself out. You need to look at the behaviour of the everyday-person (white or otherwise) to see how this works.

After WWII, popularity of movies that derided that fruitless and wasteful endevour was a sign that people believed them - the movies and stories that came from WWII are cherrished as historical accounts of what we should never, ever do again. Perhaps the best sign that things aren't so good in race relations is the popularity of angry black rap music - white folks agree with them that the world, basically, sucks because of the injustice in it.

Where AA has failed as a "positive" message, rappers will succeed using negativity. The backlash against AA and any form of positive redress of past wrongdoings means that the redress will happen with our children and grandchildren, when our own biggoted voices fade to naught.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 0) (#534)
by trhurler on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 09:01:19 PM EST

That's not "justice" any more than a lynch mob is justice. It should not be tolerated any more than that mob should be.

Israel was in the works long before Hitler; the Holocaust merely provided the political support from existing nations that was needed to make it viable.

Finally, in case you've failed to notice, rap is now about as angry as Elvis. Also, I take offense at your suggestion that I'm a bigot. I treat everyone the same way as regards race: I don't give a damn. I despise most people, but I keep that mostly to myself when I'm not posting on a web site:) The few I actually like come in a variety of colors, shapes, sizes, and so on.

The most important thing here is that "justice" is not an eye for an eye, and it is not a mob doing whatever it wants. Calling mob politics justice is calling the IRA an institution of justice, or al Quaida(sp?) an institution of justice, and so on. It just isn't true.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
truth (none / 0) (#535)
by gdanjo on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 09:23:14 PM EST

The most important thing here is that "justice" is not an eye for an eye, and it is not a mob doing whatever it wants. Calling mob politics justice is calling the IRA an institution of justice, or al Quaida(sp?) an institution of justice, and so on. It just isn't true.
I think you misunderstand me. When I talk about things, I do not mean them to be true, nor do I wish them to be true. Whether you like it or not, the IRA did what it did to even out an imbalance - to get justice - real or perceived. They did it using mechanisms that you may not like, but exist and can be described none the same. I am merely describing this process.

And that rap is as "angry as Elvis" just shows how little you listen to it, and how little you understand the message being brought across. Like all art, the anger becomes more sublime, more cryptic, more hidden, both actively to avoid labelling - that's what art does - and passively being diluted by corp-music. But believe me the anger is still out there. That you don't hear it does not mean it doesn't exist, it just means you don't look for it (or choose to ignore it, which is your right).

Definition and meaning are not the same thing. You can define an orange to be blue but it does not make it so. You can say that white people are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors, and you are right by definition (personal responsibility can only apply to personal actions). But in reality, you (and I) are perceived to be responsible, and you (and I) have benfited from our ancestor's actions, and so you (and I) will be viewed as responsible, regardless of what should or shouldn't be.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Well then... (none / 0) (#550)
by trhurler on Sat Feb 21, 2004 at 04:50:44 AM EST

If your comment was meant to be descriptive rather than normative, then why did you post it as a response to a statement that normatively speaking, there is no difference between white racism and black racism? You may avoid my charge of calling injustice by the name of justice by claiming merely to describe what is, but in that case, your comment was irrelevant to the conversation at hand... obviously people engage in revenge, but this has nothing to do with what they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
what I should or should not say (none / 0) (#577)
by gdanjo on Sun Feb 22, 2004 at 07:28:17 PM EST

If you look back at my original post, I end with:
[...] It's not hypocricy, it's the result of the evolution of emotions that try to, irrationally, balance things out (in this case, guilt). And thank god for irrational emotions such as guilt, for without them rationality would run amok.
So while I do not say what one SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do, I do applaud one side of the argument - that racism is sometimes warranted to reverse the effects of racism.

Let me explain how I get to this conclusion. Consider the argument that "might makes right." If at the end of the argument, all people will agree that "might makes right" then we can safely say that the thesis is true. We now begin the argument. Opponents of the original thesis are killed by the might that they oppose. Extrapolate. Eventually, all people who are still alive agree that "might makes right." Ergo, might does indeed make right.

So where is the fallacy of this argument? The fallacy occurs when the people who are against the original thesis are killed. They are killed to make the thesis true - the opposing argument is not rationally dissolved, it is irrationally removed from the equation.

Now back to our ancestors; convenienly, they're all dead (thank God for that, but that's another story). If they were still alive, and you gained benefits from their racist actions, are you then completely exhonorated by their actions? Should you be allowed to continue to benfit from their racism while saying you are not racist yourself? Or course not. But how is it then that just because your ancestors are dead you are now "free" from their behaviour? Well, you are free from it by definition becase we excuse the sins of a dead man (through our inability to assert justice on them).

Now, I still state that this "racism" that the white man feels neither SHOULD nor SHOULD NOT occur, because to take any position would contradict myself. Hence, I take the irrational view that "thank God for irrationality, otherwise 'might is right' would be true" which it most definately is not.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Several things (none / 0) (#586)
by trhurler on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 07:15:03 PM EST

First of all, your argument is a gross oversimplification. My ancestors not only never had any slaves, but didn't move to the US until well after slavery was consigned to the history books in this country. Many blacks who live in the US today are prospering off of slavery just as many whites are. Some of their ancestors came here after slavery was ended; some came here themselves. Some of their ancestors were here while slavery existed, but were not slaves. Sorting out who should and should not be the beneficiary of any "corrective racism" is hopeless. Notice that I am not granted the opportunity to compete equally against blacks just because I never profitted from slavery. Funny, isn't it?

The simple fact is that racism as a "cure" is no cure at all. It perpetuates the problem by perpetuating the resentments and hatred. The solution to Middle Eastern problems is not more revenge bombings, and the solution to US race relations is not more racism, and the solution to Irish problems is not more violence, and the reason is more or less the same: innocent people get hurt, hatred gets perpetuated, and nothing get solved. Anyone advocating that path is either naive or a monster.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
simplicity (none / 0) (#587)
by gdanjo on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 09:37:11 PM EST

First of all, your argument is a gross oversimplification. My ancestors not only never had any slaves, but didn't move to the US until well after slavery was consigned to the history books in this country. Many blacks who live in the US today are prospering off of slavery just as many whites are. Some of their ancestors came here after slavery was ended; some came here themselves. Some of their ancestors were here while slavery existed, but were not slaves. Sorting out who should and should not be the beneficiary of any "corrective racism" is hopeless. Notice that I am not granted the opportunity to compete equally against blacks just because I never profitted from slavery. Funny, isn't it?
It seems to me that you are, by nature, a reductionist, which is why you do not understand my position - which, I admit, is a "big picture" outlook. So let me rephrase the issue one more time in the hope that you will better understand me:

Instead of racism against blacks, let's look at "racism" (genocide) against american indians. Here, you could not possibly deny that you benefited from the displacement of american indians - for you live on the very land they called their own (ignore your reductionist tendencies for a second - I can't prove that the piece of land that you specifically live on was owned by indians).

Now use the same argument as I used before - your ancestors (in the generalised, oversimplified sense) used the thesis "might is right" and proved it to be correct, and you, as beneficiary, are indirectly responsible (if the perpetrators were alive then you would have no responsibility). This success gives other would-be tyrants the idea that this thesis might be applicable elsewhere. Extrapolate - bad things happen.

I oversimplify the argument for the specific reason that I wish to keep it concise - you may deconstruct it all you wish but you will never solve this paradox of how to deny "might is right" and yet deny all responsibility of your "ancestors" actions (or "other people's actions from which you directly benefited from", if you like).

The simple fact is that racism as a "cure" is no cure at all. It perpetuates the problem by perpetuating the resentments and hatred. The solution to Middle Eastern problems is not more revenge bombings, and the solution to US race relations is not more racism, and the solution to Irish problems is not more violence, and the reason is more or less the same: innocent people get hurt, hatred gets perpetuated, and nothing get solved. Anyone advocating that path is either naive or a monster.
I never said it was a cure, and I have never said that reverse-racism is fair. I also accept your point that violence begets violence and it turns into a viscious circle. But remember this: grievences that are not communicated become multiplied. In other words, if a people have a grudge against another people then keeping it bottled up will simply multiply it's effect when it is finally released. Better to diffuse this anger by a little "payback" that both parties agree to than a chaotic "spilling over" of anger that nobody wants.

And I stick to my opinion: thank God for irrational behaviour like this, for if the agrieved forgot past misdeeds then they would surely be wiped out, and "might is right" would have won the day.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

I get so tired of this argument (none / 0) (#588)
by trhurler on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 10:22:21 PM EST

First of all, almost none of the natives had any notion of land ownership; in the earliest days, in fact, the easiest way to take land from them was to offer to trade it, because they had no notion of what they were doing. Only later, when they came to understand what "property rights" meant, was violence even necessary.

Second, this truly is ancient history. The present day descendents of those natives are now no more or less native than I am. We were both born here, and it is that simple. They have the same opportunities I have, and notably, you don't see many of them complaining about it - unlike Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, one might note. I am willing to grant that wrongs were done to some peoples' ancestors. However, those people and even their children are all dead now. We remember what happened because we have books. The same is true of slavery.

Third, the only truly irrational thing here is that there are people who are still angry about these issues. A quick stroll through the ghetto will reveal that poor black people are not suffering from slavery - they're suffering from a lack of willingness to become educated, to work hard, to do all the things one has to do to succeed. And the blacks who aren't lacking those attributes are doing just fine. The same is true of the descendents of natives, and of white people too.

"Reparations" are a political stunt for those in charge(a way of getting support, mostly,) and a demand made to further the excuses for their own failures by the people who demand them. We live in the most equitable, most opportunity-laden civilization that has ever existed, in which even incompetents can be successful, and yet these people claim they are owed their success, and that their present lack of success is someone else's fault.

I don't buy it.

Finally, if everyone agreed to reparations, affirmative action, and other such racist propositions, then your "little payback" proposition would be true. But, the reality is that most people do not agree. If they publicly acquiesce, it is out of fear of being called racists themselves. Most people, if the truth is told, think the whole thing is ridiculous, and they're right for once.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
me too, so let's summarise (none / 0) (#589)
by gdanjo on Mon Feb 23, 2004 at 11:13:01 PM EST

You are rational in that you are a reductionist - no matter what the bad deeds have occured, as long as it can be rationalised at a lower level it is ok. And since changing the momentum of history is too hard, you assume that there is no solution and therefore no solution should be attempted.

I am not.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Look (none / 0) (#596)
by trhurler on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 05:49:46 PM EST

It isn't that I'm saying no solution should be attempted - it is that I'm saying there isn't a problem. The "problem" is being created by people who see it as a political tool for themselves.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
politics (none / 0) (#598)
by gdanjo on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 05:43:43 PM EST

[...] The "problem" is being created by people who see it as a political tool for themselves.
"Political tools" are not created in a vacuum. If a political tool is successful, then there exists some truth to it - whether or not the tool is being used for selfish purposes.

You give too much credence to politicians. They do not create "problems", they magnify them - which implies that there is indeed a "problem" at some lower level.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Actually, (none / 0) (#600)
by trhurler on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:35:45 PM EST

It is easy to create a political tool such as this using nothing more than peoples' tribal instincts. You vs me. Black vs white. Jew vs Arab. Catholic vs Protestant. It doesn't matter whether the two sides are even very different, as long as there's a difference in labels and some way to tell them apart. People immediately attach emotion to these camps. Love this, hate that. It is why sports are so popular, in case you never thought about it, and why soccer hooligans exist.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
escalation (none / 0) (#601)
by gdanjo on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:19:23 PM EST

It is easy to create a political tool such as this using nothing more than peoples' tribal instincts. You vs me. Black vs white. Jew vs Arab. Catholic vs Protestant. It doesn't matter whether the two sides are even very different, as long as there's a difference in labels and some way to tell them apart. People immediately attach emotion to these camps. Love this, hate that. It is why sports are so popular, in case you never thought about it, and why soccer hooligans exist.
But sport doesn't escalate to politics - unless there are riots, and these usually happen in poor areas where the people only have sport to fulfill there otherwise hope-less lives. All the examples you cite do indeed have underlying problems that cause people to suffer, so they are political issues.

If your thesis were true - that any differences can escalate up to X vs. Y and into a political "tool" - then why are there no "white vs. jew" or "rich black vs. rich white" or even "CEO of company X vs. CEO of company Y"? The answer is that there is competition between these people, it's just that they have the ability to abstract these "battles" into social, political, or ownership spheres. Without such an outlet - without the ability to "battle" in non-violent ways - the only opportunity for competition is actual violence. Hence back to AA - give black people a chance to move into these higher-level spheres, and you'll see much less violence based battles; whether they are responsible for their situation or not.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 0) (#602)
by trhurler on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 05:16:12 PM EST

Look up the "Christian Identity" movement, and similar. Look up the feuds over the last 50 years or so between the Nation of Islam(blacks) and various Jewish groups. Look at the battles fought(often in courts, but also with death threats and so on,) to keep black professional athletes and so on out of affluent white neighborhoods. The fact is, while not everyone will latch onto these things, and not every possible matchup happens on a wide enough scale to be publicly visible, there is ample evidence that tribalism is an instinctive human behavior that requires conscious effort to overcome(but it CAN be overcome.) People WANT enemies, because they give purpose to life, even if that purpose is a stupid, reckless, and harmful one.

That's why hate is so common - people don't NEED a good reason to hate.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
on might (none / 0) (#603)
by gdanjo on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 07:31:07 PM EST

[...] The fact is, while not everyone will latch onto these things, and not every possible matchup happens on a wide enough scale to be publicly visible, there is ample evidence that tribalism is an instinctive human behavior that requires conscious effort to overcome(but it CAN be overcome.) [...]
Uber-rationalisation is also an instinctive behaviour that we can overcome (in fact, we can overcome pretty much anything if we try - this does not prove that tribal instincts are incorrect).

What you're saying is that the X vs. Y phenomena is irrational - random, in that every possible matchup happens (or, nearly every matchup happens) but not all are visible. If this were the case then how do you account for the fact that, of the visible "match ups", some are more prominent than others? You would think that if they are random (completely irrational), then each would be "roughly equivalent" in size.

In the absence of a random distribution, we can only conclude that people have reasons for chosing the "match ups" they choose. Now, ask yourself why it is that black vs. white is possibly the largest of these matchups. Perhaps it's because it's the most visible matchup (as in, the most easily recognisable). But then, perhaps black people were also "chosen" to be slaves because of the same reason - the ability to instantly recognise someone different, and therefore inferiour, to one self. Thus, the choice of "black vs. white" matchup is a rational one in that it balances out an irraional decision in the past.

Where am I going here? I have no fucking idea. This is the price you pay for uber-rationalisation. But all the above is valid if you want me to accept your uber-rationalisation.

[...] People WANT enemies, because they give purpose to life, even if that purpose is a stupid, reckless, and harmful one. That's why hate is so common - people don't NEED a good reason to hate.
Let me ask you this: why is it that you keep coming back to this thread? Is it because you came to a rational conclusion that I must be proved wrong? Or is it that you have an emotional attachment to your argument and you are compelled to keep the thread going?

I submit that it is emotion that keeps you coming back. There is no rational justification for it. You want to "right" my "wrong" (left?)opinion, and the mechanism for it is emotional attachment. If you had not had an emotional attachment to your theory then you probably would not be compelled to ever argue your case - there's no reason to.

Now, your argument leads to a paradox of vagueness - that little evils do not amount to a big evil, based on the fact that the reason there's hate in the world is because of some irrational desire in us to make your life hard. I'm saying that, rationally, you are right but the conclusion is wrong, and therefore we should hold onto our irrational emotional attachments until a solution is found - just as you hold on to your emotional attachment to your argument until we are all convinced. Otherwise, as I have stated before, the only conclusion we can logically come to is might is right.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Hmmmmm, fishy... (none / 0) (#608)
by esrever on Sun Mar 07, 2004 at 10:50:02 PM EST

...You make various compelling arguments, but they are soured by your continual reference to:
"""
...you, as beneficiary, are indirectly responsible...
"""

Definitely not.  This sort of thinking is clearly erroneous.  If my father rapes a woman, and I am born as a result, am I responsible (as a beneficiary)?  Assume he dies in the act of the crime; should I be sent to jail once I come of age at 18?

Simply because I have benefitted from the actions of some shadowy, unnameable person in the past does not make me responsible for their actions, and it certainly does not mean I should have done unto me what was done by my maybe-or-maybe-not ancestors.

Now, in a perfect world, I would perhaps feel obligated to share this benefit with the victim of the crime, but the victims are now all gone, only second-third-fourth-fifth+ hand victims now exist (if they can be called victims with any reasonable definition of the term anyway).

So what to do?  Certainly once again I think that in a perfect world people who through circumstance have come into a 'better' situation in life than others should share their fortune with others that because of past events have not; but there is utterly no way that state-mandated racism can alleviate any sins of the past no matter what.  Two wrongs are not what will make this situation right...

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]

how the...? (none / 0) (#540)
by syadasti on Fri Feb 20, 2004 at 11:10:33 PM EST

Look at Israel - it was formed as restitution for Hitler's crimes.

How fitting. Somehow, the crimes of Germans get repaid by the Arab residents of British-colonial Palestine.

Ceding Bavaria to an independent Jewish-ethnic state might have been a means of (at least partially just) restitution (unless, of course, you were Bavarian).

"May your chains rest lightly upon you..." --Samuel Adams
[ Parent ] <