Affirmative Action Treats

[Rywill]

I hadn't heard of this before, but apparently the Young Republicans held a bake sale as a protest (www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/25/smu.bake.sale.ap/index.html) at SMU. They were selling treats at varying prices depending on your race and gender (as high as $1 for white males, as low as 25 cents for any black person). The sale was shut down after 45 minutes for creating a dangerous condition on campus with people yelling, etc. (the YR deny the danger, but I can certainly imagine it).

What do folks think of this? Is it just an in-your-face illustration of the unfairness of affirmative action, or is this an offensive oversimplification of the issues at hand?

Also, although there's no right to free speech at SMU, should SMU shut it down or let it go on? What if SMU shut down a pro-AA rally because YR protesters were there and were getting unruly? Wouldn't you expect campus security to just haul the YR protesters away? If the bake sale is a stupid oversimplification, wouldn't it be better to let it go and show everyone how dumb the YR folks are?

Although I can think of some good arguments against the bake sale, the only one CNN printed was this (IMO) total non sequitur:

"My reaction was disgust because of the ignorance of some SMU students," said [SMU sophmore Matt] Houston, who is black. "They were arguing that affirmative action was solely based on race. It's not based on race. It's based on bringing a diverse community to a certain organization."
Huh? I can see being for a diverse community, but isn't that all about race? In other words, you want diversity of race (among other things), right? If not, why select based on race instead of what you're really trying to get diversity of (like political opinions)?

[Anders Hallin]

It's an offensive oversimplification of the issues at hand?

[Desslock]

just an in-your-face illustration of the unfairness of affirmative action?

[Lizard_King]

Does it matter? I think you are right to focus on the university's lack of concern for the equitable treatment of all of its students' opinions. It happens all of the time, depending on which extreme of the political spectrum college administrations favour. Good thing some people (www.thefire.org) combat that sort of horseshit independent of the ideology at stake.

[Jason McCullough]

This particular little bit of political theater has been circulating among young republican groups for a while.

I go with "offensive simplification"; I can't quite figure out why though. Have to think about it more.

Not that they should have shut it down; ideally they'd put some armed guards out to predict them. Do colleges ever do that though?

[XPav]

I think the bake sale was silly. At the same time, they should be able to have it.

The problems occur when someone wants to beat up the Young Conservatives. I mean, we're talking issues of race here. A few heated words there, a finger pointing there, and then we have a brawl going. Its a hot-button issue, and innocent protests that "We were just illustrating affirmative action by selling cookies, we didn't know people would get upset" arguments have zero credibility with me. They knew that it would get people riled up, and possible hostile.

So, you have to

1) Tell the Conservatives to stop their silly bake sale
2) Get a security person out there to prevent any violence

But then you have to wonder -- who has to provide the security?

My school, UH, setup "free speech zones", and required organizations to sign up in advance for them with a description of the event. So organizations could say whatever they wanted too, as long as they were in specific places at a specific time. That was for safety. Its not an ideal solution, as the "free speech zones" are outside of normal traffic areas, but its sane, IMHO.

[Lizard_King]

Not that they should have shut it down; ideally they'd put some armed guards out to predict them. Do colleges ever do that though?
It depends on the university and what sort of political climate it has. For instance, San Francisco State has had to have all sorts of a security presence near anything remotely Israel/Palestine related for some time.

You could at least ensure that students would be forced to behave with minimal civility (ie no physical, material threats, for instance) when their beliefs are challenged. If that requires armed guards, things have already gone too far, but it's important that any academic institution that promises its students freedom of expression* go as far as it takes (within reason) to protect them. Especially when it is an unpopular opinion that is at stake...

In this case, I am almost 100% that the university is full of shit when they say it was the students' welfare was their primary motivation for shutting them down. Most times, they use that as an excuse to silence opinions they find unpalatable.

*as opposed to universities that explicitly have an ideological agenda to promote, such as some Christian schools or a Swarthmore or something like that.

[Desslock]

Is there such a thing as a non-radical left wing university? Most people are left wing and idealistic at university age, before they develop perspective and better understanding of the world.

I'm not talking about the differences between democrat/republicans -- the dominant political sentiments on univeristy campuses tend to be far more left wing than any mainstream political party.

[Bub, Andrew]

Is there such a thing as a non-radical left wing university? Most people are left wing and idealistic at university age, before they develop perspective and better understanding of the world.


Bob Jones?

[XPav]

Baylor?
Brigham Young?

[Lizard_King]

Is there such a thing as a non-radical left wing university? Most people are left wing and idealistic at university age, before they develop perspective and better understanding of the world.

I'm not talking about the differences between democrat/republicans -- the dominant political sentiments on univeristy campuses tend to be far more left wing than any mainstream political party.

Actually, there are plenty of smaller schools with heavily conservative populations; I believe William Bennet wrote a whole book about his favourite 50, although he no doubt omitted whether that was connected to how close they are to casinos.

My school's population was slanted to the left, not much, but still present. That's not a problem. What is a problem is when a school markets itself as a haven for independent thinking and then enforces ideological conformity from the administrational level. One thing is a professor throwing in a crack about George W; another thing entirely is being penalized for matters of opinion.

Free speech zones are an abomination. Seriously. www.thefire.org. The idea that a university, especially if it is a state university that is therefore bound explicitly by the first amendment, has limited the number of places where opinions may be freely expressed is ridiculous.

Now, of course, there are reasonable grounds for time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. For instance, if security is a real concern (and I don't mean the emotional security of campus zealots) I completely understand asking whatever controversial student activities to take place in a certain area so that safety can be ensured. But that requires a legitimate consensus between the students and the admins, not an executive decree wherein the university grants itself de facto power of approval over people's opinions.

[Midnight Son]

I tutor hot little coeds of ALL races! It's just my bleedin' heart nature. :)

Now, why don't some lefty folks get together and do a bake sale based on what kind of vehicle you drive? Have an original VW bug? 25 cents! Old pickup truck? 45 cents! Stoopid ricer with spoiler and coffee can exhaust? $1.50 Small SUV? $5! Cadillac Escallade? $10 per cupcake!

[Kyle Wilson]

I just feel slighted that I have to pay a dollar for a cookie.

[Peter Frazier]

I think the problem is with the fact that many students are still filled with testorone, rage and passionate (if naive) ideals. This stunt is like waving a red flag at a bull. It's not the best way to get your opposition to think about what the priciples are.
I think it's pretty funny though.

[Kalle]

Is there such a thing as a non-radical left wing university? Most people are left wing and idealistic at university age, before they develop perspective and better understanding of the world.


Pfah, you're just old and cynical. The Revolution will come! Free cupcakes for everyone! :)

[bmulligan]

Those that approve of affirmative action always describe it is a complicated issue. There's almost always an emotional response to any one who challenges the idea.

They were arguing that affirmative action was solely based on race. It's not based on race. It's based on bringing a diverse community to a certain organization

The inherent contradiction in the believers' philosophy negates any rational approach to the issue. They have been taught to believe in fairness, equality, and non-discrimination but have been conditioned to favor an unfair, enequal, and discriminatory policy. Since this conflict cannot be resolved logically, the response is to claim the issue is too complex to be understood fully or represented in simplistic terms.

The bake sale is a perfect microcosm of Michigan's enrollment policy. Minorities were allowed to 'purchase' admittance for a lower amount of points, or more acurately, were 'subsidized' bonus points for belonging to a minority group.

[Anders Hallin]

I go with "offensive simplification"; I can't quite figure out why though. Have to think about it more.
Because Affirmative Action is a structural measure, while they only focus on the individual aspects of it?

[MikeJ]

Aren't we all individuals? Who cares what structures think?

[bmulligan]

Aparently we're not individuals, we all 'belong' to a group. We're either black or white, privlidged or oppressed, racist or more racist.

[Anders Hallin]

Aren't we all individuals? Who cares what structures think?
"they only focus on the individual aspects of it" does not mean that there aren't any individual aspects, believe it or not.

[XPav]

Help help I'm being opressed!

But yeah, those College Republicans. Great, stand-up guys, (www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6860409.htm)

[DavidCPA]

The student's exercise was a gross simplification of the issue. They probably omitted a few prices:

Black or female students could not purchase a product at all for any price or with any amount of talent or determination

Black students paid a higher price than whites for the same product because no one in their family had purchased the product before

Does affirmative action have its merits? Yes. Can it be taken too far? Of course. Personally I would rather err on the side of building a more diverse environment for our universities. In 50 years affirmative action may be a relic that no one believes in, but it has its place now.

-DavidCPA

[MikeJ]

"they only focus on the individual aspects of it" does not mean that there aren't any individual aspects, believe it or not.

I believe that you believe that there are individual aspects. I've believed this since for some time. Before today even.

I also believe that you believe that there are aspects that are not about individuals. I believe that's false. Believe it or not! (in a creepy Jack Palance voice)

[MikeJ]

<double post>

Hey, I didn't press that button twice! You guys believe me... right?

[Jason McCullough]

The student's exercise was a gross simplification of the issue. They probably omitted a few prices:

Black or female students could not purchase a product at all for any price or with any amount of talent or determination

Black students paid a higher price than whites for the same product because no one in their family had purchased the product before

Does affirmative action have its merits? Yes. Can it be taken too far? Of course. Personally I would rather err on the side of building a more diverse environment for our universities. In 50 years affirmative action may be a relic that no one believes in, but it has its place now.

-DavidCPA

Yeah, I was thinking something like this. If they were *directly analogizing* to affirmative action, I think it'd look like this instead:

Harvard's overall rejection rate is 90%. Let's say 200 people apply to buy cookies from Harvard for $1. They only have 20 of them to sell, unfortunately. There's a bunch of ways to hand them out: sell them to the highest bidder (income), allocate them based on how badly they pyschologically want the cookies (competitive), how hungry they are (need), how important the work they'll do following eating the cookies is (merit), demographics (race/sex/etc.).

Let's say Harvard decides to do it as follows. They decide they'll sell 18 cookies to whites and 2 to blacks, to match the relatives proportion in the population. They put all the white people in one batch and randomally choose 18 of them, and put all the black people in one batch and randomally choose 2 of them.

If in the two hundred people trying to get a cookie there's 190 white people and 10 black people, the white people have a 9.4% chance of getting one, while the black people have a 20% chance of getting one.

Shocking, isn't it? Those darn blacks are taking all the cookies; they have a double acceptance rate! Until you realize that if the cookies *weren't* handed out based on the demographics of society - they were handed out proportiontal to the demographics of the applicant pool - it would only improve an individual caucasian's chances of getting in to 10%. Even if you *completely take out* the black applicants, that only improves an individual white applicant's chances to 10.5%.

In other words, it doesn't make a damn difference to whites what the black acceptance rate is. By contrast, the gap in this student example is absolutely enormous; a price gap of up to 100%. They're wildly distorting things, and unsurprisingly people get pissed. It's a touchy subject.

Not that that excuses them or the cowardly administration, but gimme a break.

[Lizard_King]

In other words, it doesn't make a damn difference to whites what the black acceptance rate is. By contrast, the gap in this student example is absolutely enormous; a price gap of up to 100%. They're wildly distorting things, and unsurprisingly people get pissed. It's a touchy subject.
Again, it comes down to whether you think things that aren't right on the individual level are ok when they kinda sorta maybe might balance out on the systemic level.

Not that that excuses them or the cowardly administration,
Moment of agreement. Noted. Cherished.


but gimme a break.

No.
EDIT: fixed quotes

[Jason McCullough]

"Curse Affirmative Action! Without it I'd have an infinitesimal chance of getting into a slightly better school than I did!"

Usually unmentioned when this comes up is that it's not like the 1% of the majority that gets knocked out is going to be washing dishes. They'll get into a slightly worse school.

[Qenan]

Is there such a thing as a non-radical left wing university? Most people are left wing and idealistic at university age, before they develop perspective and better understanding of the world.

That's a generalization, of course, and I wouldn't lean too hard on it. I've gotten steadily more radical as I have grown older (I'm now 41).

[Midnight Son]

I'm a fucking minority: white man. :wink:

[Rywill]

"Curse Affirmative Action! Without it I'd have an infinitesimal chance of getting into a slightly better school than I did!"

Usually unmentioned when this comes up is that it's not like the 1% of the majority that gets knocked out is going to be washing dishes. They'll get into a slightly worse school.
Well, I guess any injustice is okay as long as you don't end up washing dishes or anything.

[Jason McCullough]

Straw Man

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

:D

[Brad Grenz]

We're going to have to change the name of the site to Quarter to Three Strawmen pretty soon.

[Anders Hallin]

I also believe that you believe that there are aspects that are not about individuals. I believe that's false. Believe it or not! (in a creepy Jack Palance voice)
I see a whole lot of individuals who will never have the opportunity (or be severely hindered) to fully achieve their potential, and that this situation will pass on to their children, and their children's children, and their children's children's children, and...
Because of structural aspects.

[voltaic]

Thankfully one of our resident Swedes will be educating us on racial realities now. Seriously Anders, no offense, but do any black people even live in Sweden? Hispanics? Asians? This isn't to say Sweden is a better or worse place for it, but you aren't exactly near the issue either.

[Brad Grenz]

You know, if a socialist paradise like Sweden can't fix such problems, I don't see why we should even bother trying!

[Anders Hallin]

Thankfully one of our resident Swedes will be educating us on racial realities now. Seriously Anders, no offense, but do any black people even live in Sweden? Hispanics? Asians? This isn't to say Sweden is a better or worse place for it, but you aren't exactly near the issue either.
Well, we have Turks, Kurds, Bosnians, other Balkan groups, Finns (but they hardly count), Chileans, Somalians and other African groups, Persians, Iraqis, Peruvians, Romani and any other group you'd care to mention. Most of them at my job, actually.
But yes, I am far removed from the US and its problems, and I don't think I am fit to educate anyone about anything, and didn't try to. If you get all defensive because I happen to see a structural imbalance unlike any other in the world in the situation with black people in the US and this is somehow wrong, you are of course free to enlighten me.
I'm awfully sorry that I that example of structural imbalance and mentioned that it is a good idea to correct structural imbalances in general, even though I'm a Swede, and therefore must ALWAYS take the moral high ground, in it and have the answer to every question of inequality in the world, while rubbing your noses in it. BECAUSE THAT'S JUST THE THING WE SWEDES DO. Awful impolite of me.

[bmulligan]

Does affirmative action have its merits? Yes. Can it be taken too far? Of course. Personally I would rather err on the side of building a more diverse environment for our universities. In 50 years affirmative action may be a relic that no one believes in, but it has its place now.


It has merits for those who would gain advantage because of race. Who determines when it has been taken too far, or when it has lost it's place. The government? A majority of the people, or just the oppreseed ones? Who determines which group is more oppressed?

This is directly analogous to the socialist doctrine: to each according to his need. It's an attempt to redistribute 'fairness' instead of income. Except with racial fairness, there is no standard to determine the time when the goal of the policy has been reached. The 'need' will be continuous as long as people claim to have a need. Whether this need is legitimate or false, cannot be determined either. At least with money, we can count to make sure everyone has the same. With this insane policy, the 'wealth' that is being redistributed is peoples attitudes, not anything tangible or controllable by legislation.

When the principle of government is to treat people fairly regardless of race, why have a policy that clearly does not? Yes, the government has had 'slavery' laws in the past, but taking these laws away is the path to equality, not instituting another racist policy to "make up" for past disgressions. Unfairness + unfairness != Equality

[Desslock]

Harvard's overall rejection rate is 90%. Let's say 200 people apply to buy cookies from Harvard for $1. ...Let's say Harvard decides to do it as follows. They decide they'll sell 18 cookies to whites and 2 to blacks, to match the relatives proportion in the population. ...If in the two hundred people trying to get a cookie there's 190 white people and 10 black people, the white people have a 9.4%

Your numbers are screwy (90% rejection rate would mean 20 cookie people would get cookies!), and fictional -- you just arbitrarily presume there's 190 people of one group trying to get in, and 10 people of the other, and then make "fairness" conclusions based upon numbers you've made up.

In many circumstances, the percentage of people from a "group" applying for a position is radically different that the percentage that group represents in society as a whole. What if it's more accurate to state that there are 50,000 "race A" people trying to get the cookies, and 30 "race b" people who are hungry enough to line up for cookies - suddenly, using the same formula for judging relative fairness, the numbers are radically different if you are alloting 20 cookies to race b people, just because they represent 10% of the overall population (or 10 cookies, to keep your numbers). Your numbers, and resulting fairness conclusions, are completely meaningless.

Discriminating on the basis of race is always wrong. Trying to address discrimination by deliberately duplicating the exact same offence, is inane, and legitimizes the very conduct that you're trying to prohibit - conduct that should be abhorrent to all rational individuals, and never justified under any circumstance.

[Jason McCullough]

Whoops, forgot to edit that number. Fixed.

My point was "the acceptance rate for minorities to highly selective schools has little or no affect on the acceptance rate for the majority."

In your 50,000/30 example, the chance for a majority individual to get in drops from .6% to .2%. In other words, from nearly zero to nearly zero; sure, it drops by two-thirds, but the number is already so small to begin with that it's a secondary effect, compared to the extremely large number of applicants and extremely small number of slots.

Maybe it's me, but I just can't get upset about a drop from .6% to .2%; it's a crapshoot to get in anyway.

I'm actually rather ambivalent about AA, I'm just tired of seeing the downsides exaggerated.

Who determines when it has been taken too far, or when it has lost it's place. The government? A majority of the people, or just the oppreseed ones?

Well since we're in a democracy, the majority does, more or less.

[Jason McCullough]

Forgot to mention: if college entrance is supposed to be so even-handed, what about Harvard setting aside 10% of its slots of the children of alumni?

[Kalle]

Thankfully one of our resident Swedes will be educating us on racial realities now. Seriously Anders, no offense, but do any black people even live in Sweden? Hispanics? Asians? This isn't to say Sweden is a better or worse place for it, but you aren't exactly near the issue either.
Well, we have Turks, Kurds, Bosnians, other Balkan groups, Finns (but they hardly count), Chileans, Somalians and other African groups, Persians, Iraqis, Peruvians, Romani and any other group you'd care to mention.

What Anders' said. Over 20% of all Swedish citizens were born in another country, or have parents who were born in another country. Racial issues does not mean quite the same to us as it does to you, the fact that we never enslaved and imported our largest minority being one of the major reasons, but to accuse Swedes in particular of ignorance on the matter must be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I am an uneasy supporter of affirmative action. Universities discriminate all the time. Tone deaf people can't get a music scholarship, top-notch athletes are highly overrepresented and rewarded, non-state/rural students are often added for diversity reasons. (I am convinced that my residential graduate college in Toronto only let me in because I was from rural New Brunswick as well as being a good student and the college was dedicated to a diverse student body, in the best sense of the word). My main problem is similar to Justice O'Connor's.

When do we stop?

If never, then it is clear that AA does not have the desired effect. If it does not work, there is no sound policy reason to continue it. With only a few decades of serious affirmative action to go by, it may be too soon to proclaim it a failure but if we don't see fruits of the system soon we should move on to a better idea.

If we do expect AA to have a positive effect, then there will likely be a time when we say, "OK. Enough. You people have made it. Thanks for coming." What are the measures of success? A black president? More black/hispanic senators? Bill Gates's daughter marrying Lil Bow Wow? 12 per cent of Fortune 500 CEOs?

Troy

[XPav]

Forgot to mention: if college entrance is supposed to be so even-handed, what about Harvard setting aside 10% of its slots of the children of alumni?
Your daddy bought a brownie? Your daddy is rich? Well then, it $0.25 for you!

[Rywill]

Forgot to mention: if college entrance is supposed to be so even-handed, what about Harvard setting aside 10% of its slots of the children of alumni?
You're making the mistaken assumption that colleges can't discriminate on any criteria. Colleges are private businesses and can discriminate on any criteria they want--you're not smart enough, you can't afford to go here, whatever--except race. For good or ill, the country has for several decades outlawed even private businesses discriminating against people based on race. That leads to the obvious question "Well then how come affirmative action is legal, since it's obvious facial race discrimination?" The answer has always been that in fact the status quo was racist, and no matter how racist AA looks, it's actually just pushing things back into balance.

The three good counter-arguments I've heard are (A) the institutional/societal racism isn't that bad any more, so AA does more harm than good; (B) even if there's institutional racism, trying to fight it with state-sponsored racism is still morally wrong. This is not a fight-fire-with-fire issue; and (C) even if there's institutional racism, AA does more harm than good because it fosters a victim mentality in the beneficiaries and devalues the accomplishments of minorities who succeed (or who could succeed) without benefit of AA.

I tend to agree with B and C but not A, fwiw.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not arguing with "the government should never discriminate on race" here; it's a perfectly valid principle (although I disagree). I'm just arguing with the "it's not fair" stuff you see; college entrance isn't remotely fair in the first place.

C is the thing that might convince me someday, but for the moment I think it does more good than harm.

Anyway, the reason this bake sale thing enraged so many people is it price discriminates by race, which is not the same thing as rationing by race. People find one a lot more offensive than the other.

[Anders Hallin]

"OK. Enough. You people have made it. Thanks for coming." What are the measures of success? A black president? More black/hispanic senators? Bill Gates's daughter marrying Lil Bow Wow? 12 per cent of Fortune 500 CEOs?

Troy
Shouldn't it be the other way around? A comparable situation to the general population in the poorest sector, for example. Because all the things you mentioned count on individual success stories, and those can always appear (unless there is a system in place that is truly intent on keeping every black woman and man down, which there isn't).

[voltaic]

What Anders' said. Over 20% of all Swedish citizens were born in another country, or have parents who were born in another country. Racial issues does not mean quite the same to us as it does to you, the fact that we never enslaved and imported our largest minority being one of the major reasons, but to accuse Swedes in particular of ignorance on the matter must be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.
I agree, that would be a pretty dumb thing to say. Fortunately, no one here has said it. My point is that a person who is only exposed to an issue "in theory" or via news media or whatever and doesn't actually experience it personally isn't nearly as well prepared to talk about the realities of it. It's just like all of us upwardly mobile, tech-savvy, middle income white folks on this forum sitting in our armchairs over cups of fine tea talking about the problems of the people in Iraq. There's little more to it than arguing over what journalists said because none of us are there.

This very idea gets brought up all the time on this forum although people usually use different words to say it.

[Anders Hallin]

My point is that a person who is only exposed to an issue "in theory" or via news media or whatever and doesn't actually experience it personally isn't nearly as well prepared to talk about the realities of it.
And I never claimed I was, about anything. But I want to discuss an interesting quandry just as much as anyone else. And I would very much appreciate it if I didn't get a "Oh, here comes the quasi-socialist Swedes thinking they're right again" when I tried.
Why, it almost makes me feel like I'm forced into a specific group. One that is prejudiced against, no less!

[Desslock]

In your 50,000/30 example, the chance for a majority individual to get in drops from .6% to .2%. In other words, from nearly zero to nearly zero; ... Maybe it's me, but I just can't get upset about a drop from .6% to .2%; it's a crapshoot to get in anyway.

That's pretty cynical. Again, you're just playing with fictional numbers, so I'll provide a number example to illustrate the point -- again, largely sticking with your example, but reverse the number of "group a" people applying. They represent 90% of society as a whole, and therefore under your model you've allocated 90% of the cookies to them (or 180/200) -- but instead of 50,000 people applying, what if only 360 apply, and conversely 10,000 of group b apply for the other 20 positions. Now group A has a 50% chance of getting a cookie, which is ludicrously unfair to individuals in Group B.

Again, sanctioning discrimination on the basis of race is always wrong -- the problem you're trying to address is individuals being unfairly discriminated against on the basis of race, and yet you think the solution is to unfairly discriminate against individuals on the basis of race. It's ludicrous - it's the exact same "crime" - individuals being ripped off, because of their race, which should never play a factor in anything. It's like trying to solve the problem of "murder", by murdering a bunch of people.

[Midnight Son]

Burning Man

http://images.burningman.com/index.cgi?image=10287

For all you aging baby boomer hippie types that haven't sold out to THE MAN.
(Both of you.) :D

[Desslock]

Burning Man

I'll hold out for the Equalizer's Wicker Man.

[Jason McCullough]

In your 50,000/30 example, the chance for a majority individual to get in drops from .6% to .2%. In other words, from nearly zero to nearly zero; ... Maybe it's me, but I just can't get upset about a drop from .6% to .2%; it's a crapshoot to get in anyway.

That's pretty cynical. Again, you're just playing with fictional numbers, so I'll provide a number example to illustrate the point -- again, largely sticking with your example, but reverse the number of "group a" people applying. They represent 90% of society as a whole, and therefore under your model you've allocated 90% of the cookies to them (or 180/200) -- but instead of 50,000 people applying, what if only 360 apply, and conversely 10,000 of group b apply for the other 20 positions. Now group A has a 50% chance of getting a cookie, which is ludicrously unfair to individuals in Group B.


Um, that's nice, but can you think of any situation where the race that was enslaved over-applies for choice positions?


Again, sanctioning discrimination on the basis of race is always wrong -- the problem you're trying to address is individuals being unfairly discriminated against on the basis of race, and yet you think the solution is to unfairly discriminate against individuals on the basis of race. It's ludicrous - it's the exact same "crime" - individuals being ripped off, because of their race, which should never play a factor in anything. It's like trying to solve the problem of "murder", by murdering a bunch of people.

For god's sakes, I'm ambivalent about affirmative action. I'm just pointing out that the downsides for whites in the cases where affirmative action are used are practically non-existant.

Another point: if schools took people strictly on "merit," the entire ivy league would be nothing but asian kids. Somehow I don't think anyone would be happy with this either.

[bmulligan]

wow, that's a pretty racist statement there. It might be true but it would be the most 'fair'.

[Jason McCullough]

God, I can't believe I have to explain this.

I rather doubt anyone would be very happy if the ivy league was full of nothing but asian kids. I'd be annoyed because I think the whole merit is kind of a full of it, but that's an entire other argument.

Sheesh.

[Mark Asher]

Again, sanctioning discrimination on the basis of race is always wrong -- the problem you're trying to address is individuals being unfairly discriminated against on the basis of race, and yet you think the solution is to unfairly discriminate against individuals on the basis of race. It's ludicrous - it's the exact same "crime" - individuals being ripped off, because of their race, which should never play a factor in anything. It's like trying to solve the problem of "murder", by murdering a bunch of people.

So how should government ensure that minorities are better represented at the senior levels of corporations, law firms, etc.? Children born to rich, connected families have a tremendous advantage over children born to poor families. How do you level the playing field? If you don't level the playing field somewhat, I think that kind of non-action creates problems.

The government constantly rationalizes actions that infringe on individual liberties with the argument that the greater good is being served. Why can't those arguments be applied in favor of affirmative action? Is it better that a few get discriminated against so that the many will live in a more egalitarian society?

[Lizard_King]

God, I can't believe I have to explain this.

I rather doubt anyone would be very happy if the ivy league was full of nothing but asian kids. I'd be annoyed because I think the whole merit is kind of a full of it, but that's an entire other argument.

Sheesh.

There are many "minorities" that are overrepresented at ivy league schools, in the sense that a) they are not qualified, by and large, and b) there are many of them. Like, for instance, my school was required to accept a certain number of Philadelphia residents every year, who (shockingly) led to many a dim lightbulb in a class. I hardly think replacing most of them with Asians would be that big a deal, especially given how many there already are (both east asian descent and Indian, mainly). Also, there were plenty of very qualified white people and brown people there, but there is no doubt that the cloud of affirmative action made the latter a good deal more aggressive and insecure about their status.

[Desslock]

I'm just pointing out that the downsides for whites in the cases where affirmative action are used are practically non-existant.

You're so wrong. The downside is exactly the same as when someone from another race doesn't get the position because of race. It's identical, so don't do it, ever.

Another point: if schools took people strictly on "merit," the entire ivy league would be nothing but asian kids. Somehow I don't think anyone would be happy with this either.

Nice rascist and defamatory comment.

[Desslock]

So how should government ensure that minorities are better represented at the senior levels of corporations, law firms, etc.?

Government should have nothing to do with anything other than government, and government run or subsidized institutions like schools. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

How do you ensure race doesn't play a discriminatory role in hiring/admissions -- perhaps by auditing those processes in schools and governments, instituting harsh penalties for clear violations -- there are no easy answers to combating racial prejudice but I sure as fuck know that acting in a rascist manner ain't the solution, yet that's what "affirmative action" does.

Children born to rich, connected families have a tremendous advantage over children born to poor families. How do you level the playing field?

This is a completely different point -- I'm all about giving poor people every opportunity we can to get an education and afford staying in school, through grants, scholarships, bursaries, etc. But that's the exact the point I'm making - giving the best candidates the opportunity to get the position, and not discriminating on the basis of race, wealth, background -- which individuals have no control over.

Is it better that a few get discriminated against so that the many will live in a more egalitarian society?

(a) that's great, as long as you're not one of those few -- if helping the many at the expense of the few, or the individual, was the governing philosophy of our society...as opposed to the opposite, which protects the rights of individuals; (b) that's great, if it actually works as intended, which is unlikely; (c) that's great, if there were no other possible ways to address the problem, other than committing the exact same fucking crime, but there are, or at least may be. So, not so great.

Stefan

[Mark Asher]

One of the governing principles is protection of individual rights, but there's another governing principle that will sacrifice individual rights to promote the greater good. There's not a clear cut answer in a lot of cases.

The reality is that places like the Ivy League schools produce a disproportionate percentage of the leaders of our society. If there's not some kind of mechanism in place to ensure that minorities get representation at these schools, then minorities will tend to be underrepresented in leadership roles. It's already more difficult than it should be to rise to the top in a system that is supposed to be based on merit. There's too much cronyism at work. Take away Affirmitive Action and there's a good chance things will get worse.

Why, without Affirmitive Action we probably wouldn't have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court!

[Jason McCullough]

Well, I can't really argue with "it's wrong, don't do it."

Hey, do any of the asian guys on here think what I said was racist?

[Desslock]

The reality is that places like the Ivy League schools produce a disproportionate percentage of the leaders of our society!

Sure, because they're the best schools.

If there's not some kind of mechanism in place to ensure that minorities get representation at these schools, then minorities will tend to be underrepresented in leadership roles.

As I said, I agree with that concern, with one clarification -- it's not a matter of getting minorities representation - it's a matter of ensuring that the best candidates get the position, regardless of race. I'm as against the reservation of nepotism spots as Jason is, because it's similarly discrimination on a basis other than "merit". I'm all for making the admissions process as objective as possible -- standardized tests, best marks wins - no qualifications.

Take away Affirmitive Action and there's a good chance things will get worse.

No offence, but you're just making shit up now, because you think it seems plausible. There's no compelling evidence whatsoever that Affirmative Action has been a positive force at all, and it's irrefutably racist, resulting in individuals with better marks, or better objective qualifications, not getting into schools/getting positions because they aren't the right race. It's legitimizing discrimination on the basis of race in order to prove that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong -- it's really ludicrous.

One of the governing principles is protection of individual rights, but there's another governing principle that will sacrifice individual rights to promote the greater good.

Uh, don't remember that in the Bill of Rights - I think you've confused the constitution with Spock's philosophy from Star Trek 2. Even that was proven wrong in Star Trek 3. Kirk rocks.

[Lizard_King]

Another point: if schools took people strictly on "merit," the entire ivy league would be nothing but asian kids. Somehow I don't think anyone would be happy with this either.

Does that mean you're suddenly in favour of the Bell Curve when it helps your racist (in a technical sense) arguments?

[Anders Hallin]

Hey, do any of the asian guys on here think what I said was racist?
I'm not Asian, but I'll say it was. It was just the sneaky kind that will live on far too long after more overt racism is eradicated.

[Mark Asher]

Has Affirmative Action been effective? I really don't know. Are there more or fewer minorities represented at the top levels of government and industry now than before Affirmative Action programs began? Anyone know? Maybe that's the important question to ask. If it's working, then maybe it's a good program. If it isn't, get rid of it.

[Jason McCullough]

Uh, so is it racist to say that if AA is eliminated, black admittance to ivy league schools would go way down? I'm not following; asian american test scores are statistically much higher than any other group, especially at the ivy league level. Without the informal admittance caps of college diversity programs, the majority of ivy leaguers would be asian american, if not nearly all of them. How on earth is saying that racist?

My point was that I doubt either the people who oppose or favor AA would be happy with if this was the result. Those who favor AA would be annoyed because of the whole disadvantaged/diversity thing, which it'd violate for them, and some of those who oppose AA - I'm specifically not accusing anyone here - because they're opposed to AA on grounds of bigotry.

I'm sure Desslock, et al. here wouldn't mind at all; it'd satisfy his conditions for fairness. But let's just say I don't think most of the AA opposition out there is rooted in good principles like his.

[Anders Hallin]

Actual facts have little to nothing to do with this. The fact is that you made a statement where you grouped a bunch of individuals together according to race :)
(you don't need to point out the number of times other people have done that too, I'm quite aware of it)

[Jason McCullough]

Actual facts have little to nothing to do with this. The fact is that you made a statement where you grouped a bunch of individuals together according to race :)
(you don't need to point out the number of times other people have done that too, I'm quite aware of it)

Ok then, some more racism: "black men have a statistically amount of melanin on their skin than white men."

[Anders Hallin]

Ok then, some more racism: "black men have statistically higher melanin content than white men."
Not necessarily, because black and white can be seen as purely descriptive terms, while Asian suggests a lot more than just looks (and in some cases, not looks at all)

[Desslock]

asian american test scores are statistically much higher than any other group, especially at the ivy league level. Without the informal admittance caps of college diversity programs, the majority of ivy leaguers would be asian american, if not nearly all of them.

Any stats on Asian Americans applying to Ivy League schools and being rejected? If so, on what basis? The only reason I thought what you were saying was rascist (and defamatory), is because I didn't think it was true -- What's the views of the schools of this "phenomenon"?

But let's just say I don't think most of the AA opposition out there is rooted in good principles like his

Heh, I don't know about most, but I agree that there's people opposing AA for "dishonorable" reasons - either because they're rascist or like the benefits that systemic rascism bestows upon them and other people like them.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, ok. The college test board shows that asian-american test scores overall are about the same as caucasian test scores, as mentioned here:

http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/mediapub/pressrel/SAT96.HTM

The specific AA-related issue at ivy league schools is that, if I remember correctly, a whole lot of asian american students with very high test scores apply to them; if they admitted strictly based on test scores you'd end up with a three-quarters asian-american class. Unfortunately, I can't find a source for this at the moment, so buyer beware.

As a slightly illustrative point, the Chancellor of Berkeley mentions that asian-americans are 44% of his student body here.

http://cio.chance.berkeley.edu/chancellor/sp/q_and_a.htm

[Stroker Ace]

I have a problem with Desslock's argument. Desslock favors "best-qualified candidates" receiving every slot in a top-ranked school.

This is an admirable position in theory, but I think that it assumes that "nature" is the overpowering factor in the "nature vs. nurture" debate. If the minorities are statistically worse off educationally/financially from birth (aren't they? i don't really know), then they are unlikely to ever be the most qualified.

Perhaps a few generations of affirmative action (or some other socialist-smelling program) will shift the balane more towards the middle where each ethnicity gets a comparable amount of "nurture" in his/her formative years.

[bmulligan]

This is an admirable position in theory, but I think that it assumes that "nature" is the overpowering factor in the "nature vs. nurture" debate. If the minorities are statistically worse off educationally/financially from birth (aren't they? i don't really know), then they are unlikely to ever be the most qualified.


Some people are disadvantaged. Get used to it. There's no such principle as sacrificing individual rights for the greater good as Mark suggests. Only individuals can decide for themselves what the greater good is, not an individual in government or a majority who determines it for everyone.

It is not the government's job to 'level' the playing field. It's only to give them equal protection under the law. To protect their rights equally, not guarantee everyone gets a high paying management job.

Has Affirmative Action been effective? I really don't know. Are there more or fewer minorities represented at the top levels of government and industry now than before Affirmative Action programs began? Anyone know? Maybe that's the important question to ask. If it's working, then maybe it's a good program. If it isn't, get rid of it.

According to your logic, maybe the question we should be asking is why there is no affifmative action program that appoints government jobs and industry from all schools equally instead of the Ivy leagues. It's an absurd notion, isn't it? Then why wouldn't our current affirmative action be just as absurd? There is no objective measure of success . It varies depending upon which supporter you ask. But some have come up with a solution.

The UM supporters believe a university population of 12% black is correct because 12% of the population is black. People like columnist Dwayne Wickman believe the Army should be 12% black for the same reason. And it's a volunteer army. There is no logic involved here. It's a result of pragmatist philosophy, emotional and guilt-ridden constitution.

Such programs are insults to minorities and are in effect saying to them they cannot achieve on merit alone. That they are inherently disadvantaged because of their race, and need the help of this program to achieve any sort of 'equality' in the world. Supporters of such programs are admitting they are racists. By professing the races are unequal and need a mechanism to reach an equlibrium, they are validating the stereotypes they claim to abhor.

[Stroker Ace]

Some people are disadvantaged. Get used to it. There's no such principle as sacrificing individual rights for the greater good as Mark suggests. Only individuals can decide for themselves what the greater good is, not an individual in government or a majority who determines it for everyone.

It is not the government's job to 'level' the playing field. It's only to give them equal protection under the law. To protect their rights equally, not guarantee everyone gets a high paying management job.

seriously, i don't really claim a party affiliation, but i can definitely see how affirmative action *might* help, provided it doesn't instill the "victim mentality" that has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

bmulligan, i don't mean to say that i support governmental meddling or AA or anything else, but you seem pretty quick to attack any mention of a social program. are you a college republican?

:wink:

[XPav]

People like columnist Dwayne Wickman believe the Army should be 12% black for the same reason. And it's a volunteer army. There is no logic involved here. It's a result of pragmatist philosophy, emotional and guilt-ridden constitution.

http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6725/672559.html

In support of University of Michigan's Affirmative Action policy:

The amicus curiae brief that attracted the most attention was the one filed on behalf of 30 prominent retired military officers. They argued forcefully in support of affirmative action issues from the standpoint of the interests of the U.S military. The statement was signed by three former joint chiefs of staff—Gen. John Shalikashvili, Gen. Henry Shelton, and Adm. William Crowe—as well two former defense secretaries and 11 retired four-star generals, including Norman Schwarzkopf and Anthony Zinn.

The officers argued that affirmative action is needed “not only to remedy past discrimination, but to further other compelling government interests.” They said they have had to take special steps to increase the number of Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans in the officer corps to maintain the cohesion and morale of the armed forces.

They noted that “race-conscious” policies are used by the military academies at West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. A court ruling against affirmative action would have affected those institutions as well as the hundreds of colleges and universities that have Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs, which provide 48 percent of active-duty officers.

Flatly rejecting the Bush administration’s argument in favor of “race-neutral” policies, they said, “At present, no alternative exists to limited, race-conscious programs to increase the pool of high quality minority officer candidates and to establish diverse educational settings for officers.”

If anything, the Army wants Affirmative Action so that a greater percentage of minorities become officers.

[Lizard_King]

If anything, the Army wants Affirmative Action so that a greater percentage of minorities become officers.
The Army does not have the "luxury" of little things like affording individual rights in place of measures that promote stability and efficiency, as race norming measures are meant to do. I suggest civilians be grateful for the differences between the options available to them and those available to servicemen and women.

[Anders Hallin]

It is not the government's job to 'level' the playing field. It's only to give them equal protection under the law. To protect their rights equally, not guarantee everyone gets a high paying management job.
Then what incentive is there for the down-trodden masses to partake in society and not try to create a new one?

[Brian Koontz]

I'll start this post by saying why I call Jason McCullough and Cleve Blakemore racists...

The common definition of racism is wrong. The common definition is "hatred for a particular race of people". Wrong answer.

This is a possible result of racism for sure, but its not racism itself.

I call myself ageist. I enjoy making fun of old people. I mock their frail bodies. I joke about their need for Dr. Kevorkian. I laugh at their decay.

I see humans as fundamentally different based on age. I see old people, especially old people in poor health and nearing death, as a hindrance which takes a toll on others.

Young people may be stupid (even more stupid than older people), but at least they're not dying yet.

Do I *hate* old people? No... I wish they'd be more considerate of others, but I don't hate them. I wish they'd be more active, more progressive, but I don't hate them (usually, anyway).

But I am an Ageist. I understand humans fundamentally differently depending on their age.

Racism works the same way. Its not about hate at all. Its about whether or not you treat someone's race as fundamentally important to their identity (ONCE you treat race as important, a possible outcome is racial hatred).

I do not. A person's race means very little to me. As long as they know English I can communicate with them (as opposed to old people with poor hearing and sometimes addled minds). I can enjoy having sex with them (again as opposed to old people). I can play sports with them, build projects, etc.

I consider it a character defect to treat race as IMPORTANT to the identity of humans. Now, in certain situations race will corrolate with culture, which IS important. Even with the language barrier overcome a Russian and an American would have issues. But that is a CULTURE issue and not a race issue. There is no need to confuse the two.

Jason McCullough and Cleve Blakemore are racist. Cleve Blakemore is so scared about possible outcomes of the racial divide that his entire identity is shaped by it. Jason McCullough is the typical racist leftist, eager to help the "oppressed blacks" in equally oppressive fashion.

Do you speak my language? Can we become intimate? Can we give each other joy and pain? Do we appreciate each other? Do we understand each other?

What I've found time and again is that race has nothing to do with any of the above (again, only when race corrolates with culture does it). AGE, however, has a big impact on each of those issues.

Racism is truly bad. People like McCullough and Blakemore are unfortunate. If only humans would begin to understand what Racism really is they could begin to achieve some solutions to themselves...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hadn't heard of this before, but apparently the Young Republicans held a bake sale as a protest (www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/25/smu.bake.sale.ap/index.html) at SMU. They were selling treats at varying prices depending on your race and gender (as high as $1 for white males, as low as 25 cents for any black person). The sale was shut down after 45 minutes for creating a dangerous condition on campus with people yelling, etc. (the YR deny the danger, but I can certainly imagine it).

Heh. Lets extend this analogy.

Ok, so if a business is doing this their cost must be low. Lets say their cost + desired profits is 50 cents per treat. They lose money every time they sell to a black person and hopefully they make it up with enough white sales. But do white people really want to subsidize black people in this fashion? Well, if they do its no problem at all. Its a transfer payment.

So for the sake of further argument, lets assume there IS a problem and that white people do not want to subsidize blacks. The solution then is comparative shopping. Next door there is a business that sells to everyone at 60 cents. The white people are happy since they are paying 40 cents less than next door. The blacks are happy since they are paying 35 cents less than next door. So the blacks keep shopping at the 25 cent shop and that shop goes out of business, and then the blacks move over to the 60 cent store, which does a merry business selling to everyone at 60 cents.

This situation is averted only if some pressure exists to not ALLOW shopkeepers to set their own prices. Such as the government mandating that all shopkeepers must charge $1 to whites and 25 cents to blacks, for example.

And that is again theoretically no problem at all. The government in a democracy is the will of the people, right? If the government is applying a subsidy then theoretically that is what the people want.

So I guess the whole point is that AA is a subsidy toward a particular racial group. What you think of AA is what you think of this subsidy.

What do I think? I think AA exists in a world built by humans like McCullough and Blakemore. Nice work, guys. I just can't wait for the next racist idea to come down the pipeline.

The bumblefucking heads-in-asses must stop. "Reverse Racism" is just as "racist" as "Racism". The true solution is to *WOW* *SHOCK* *GASP* understand race as of little relevance to human identity.

And that only begins to happen once racism is truly understood.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sonny, can you help me cross the street?

Hey, Dr. Kevorkian, problem case over here!

{Grandma flees stumbling across the street with her Deluxe WindWalker model}

{Grandma is shattered into broken roadkill by a Mack Truck}

{Ambulance rushes to the scene}

{Doctor rushes to the body}

Doctor: Goddamn it! These organs are decayed and useless!

Brian nods his head knowingly: Grams... not even generous in death.

Perhaps in the scavenging of the coins under the dragon's corpse (divvying up the will) however...

[XPav]

I'll start this post by saying why I call Jason McCullough and Cleve Blakemore racists...

The common definition of racism is wrong.

This is when I stopped reading. Just FYI. Would someone else read this and come up with the bullet point we can use to make fun of Brian?

[Bullhajj]

I'll start this post by saying why I call Jason McCullough and Cleve Blakemore racists...

The common definition of racism is wrong.

This is when I stopped reading. Just FYI. Would someone else read this and come up with the bullet point we can use to make fun of Brian?

I'm not reading it. Let's get Rywill! He'll read it. He'll read anything. :)

[Anders Hallin]

I read up until he started commenting on the bake-sale, and, though termed in a very Koontzian manner, I believe he is essentially correct.

(though the ageist thing.. well, each to their own)

[Lizard_King]

I read up until he started commenting on the bake-sale, and, though termed in a very Koontzian manner, I believe he is essentially correct.
I think I agree with both Koontz and you on this one, although I seriously doubt that Jason and this Cleve person everyone keeps getting all worked up about are in the same league.

[quatoria]

I read up until he started commenting on the bake-sale, and, though termed in a very Koontzian manner, I believe he is essentially correct.
I think I agree with both Koontz and you on this one, although I seriously doubt that Jason and this Cleve person everyone keeps getting all worked up about are in the same league.

They aren't. Cleve is a hysterical white supremecist who is certain that the mud people are going to rise up, kill and rape whitey (he especially focuses on the rape bit, usually homosexual in nature), and burn down civilization. So certain is he that this will occur any day now that he moved into the middle of Australia and supposedly built himself a bunker complex, where he huddles, gas mask and rad suit never more than a heartbeat away.

[Lizard_King]

They aren't. Cleve is a hysterical white supremecist who is certain that the mud people are going to rise up, kill and rape whitey (he especially focuses on the rape bit, usually homosexual in nature), and burn down civilization. So certain is he that this will occur any day now that he moved into the middle of Australia and supposedly built himself a bunker complex, where he huddles, gas mask and rad suit never more than a heartbeat away.

Does that mean the NAACP has developed weapons of mass destruction? OHNOS!!!

[Brian Koontz]

They aren't. Cleve is a hysterical white supremecist who is certain that the mud people are going to rise up, kill and rape whitey (he especially focuses on the rape bit, usually homosexual in nature), and burn down civilization. So certain is he that this will occur any day now that he moved into the middle of Australia and supposedly built himself a bunker complex, where he huddles, gas mask and rad suit never more than a heartbeat away.

Cleve has successfully fooled the simpleton otherwise known as quatoria. If you want to start a debate on the black/white issue in the US, Cleve presents a good introduction. The introduction is done entirely in the SPIRIT of the issue. The black/white issue in the US after all, is all about racism and fear, which McCullough helps prove. So those are the terms Cleve's words (and assumed identity) are couched in. Whites didn't move out of the cities in the '60s (even IN the age of supposed "love for mankind") for any other reason other than racism and fear. From the distance of Disneyland-suburbs people like McCullough "help" blacks. How much do you want to bet many of the people who either moved or whose parents moved from the cities now consider themselves to be enlightened and liberal complete non-racists? Gotta love humans.

Here's a few clues to the underlying reality...

Cleve moved to Australia. You never *move away* from what you hate, although you may very well move away from what you fear.

Cleve posts on a liberal messageboard in a manner completely ill-suited to any supremecist interests. Hint: when in deep enemy territory white supremecists deceive. Jakub is far more likely to be a white supremecist (but still won't likely ever be) than Blakemore. My point is that any white supremecist here would be subtle. Cleve was straightforward with his identity (www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5634&start=0), other than fooling people like quatoria anyway.

Maybe I should send a real white supremecist over to quatoria's house so he can see the difference. Real white supremecists have no interest in debating the issue. They only have interest in applying the outcome of their decision. Cleve's point was to achieve debate. He failed and now he is probably off doing the same thing elsewhere.

Failed strictly because of ignorance like that of quatoria's. Shame.

[Stroker Ace]

Cleve's point was to achieve debate. He failed and now he is probably off doing the same thing elsewhere.

Failed strictly because of ignorance like that of quatoria's. Shame.

personally, I don't have much interest in cleve's white supremacist cartoons, even if they are jokes. why are you holding on to his legacy?

it's not like he was the Great and Powerful Wumpus or anything - wumpus was good to have around.

[quatoria]

Failed strictly because of ignorance like that of quatoria's. Shame.

Koontz, I've had the experience of Cleve for several years now, on various usenet groups and web forums. I've spoken to co-workers of his, in unrelated circumstances. Cleve is not an identity invented to "ferment debate" on "liberal QT3". You, as usual, have not the faintest fucking idea what you're talking about.

[Jason McCullough]

Jason McCullough is the typical racist leftist, eager to help the "oppressed blacks" in equally oppressive fashion.

"Hey, you! I know we can't enslave you anymore, so......TAKE THIS EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT! MUAHAHAHHAHA!"

The black/white issue in the US after all, is all about racism and fear, which McCullough helps prove.

You know how in cop movies the big bad guy always says "we're not too different, you and I" to the hero?

From the distance of Disneyland-suburbs people like McCullough "help" blacks.

Don't live in a suburb......

[Mark Asher]

Mark Asher wrote:
Has Affirmative Action been effective? I really don't know. Are there more or fewer minorities represented at the top levels of government and industry now than before Affirmative Action programs began? Anyone know? Maybe that's the important question to ask. If it's working, then maybe it's a good program. If it isn't, get rid of it.

Bmulligan wrote: According to your logic, maybe the question we should be asking is why there is no affifmative action program that appoints government jobs and industry from all schools equally instead of the Ivy leagues. It's an absurd notion, isn't it? Then why wouldn't our current affirmative action be just as absurd? There is no objective measure of success . It varies depending upon which supporter you ask. But some have come up with a solution.

I was asking a question that you chose not to answer. The only logic behind the question was that if there are more minorities at the higher levels of government and industry after Affirmative Action programs were implemented, maybe they're doing what they were intended to do -- make sure minorities are better represented in these positions.

My guess is that in the 60's when these kinds of programs began minorities were at a disadvantage due to race. When you have restaurants refusing service to blacks, it makes it hard to have a business lunch. When country clubs don't allow black members, it's hard to do business on the golf course.

It's just one of those things where there's a consensus that's there a society-wide problem, so take some kind of action to address it. Sometimes government intervention is a good thing.

[Doug Erickson]

Yeah, McCullough actually lives in a ghetto -- seriously. Plus, it has one of the worst Indian restaurants EVER. I, on the other hand, am a suburbanite, and I'm largely divided on AA -- it's a stop-gap, knee-jerk measure that provides some small amount of short-term good while completely failing to address the larger issue. On the other hand, I'm not sure if the larger issue *is* addressable, given human nature and the current social climate, nor am I sure exactly what the specific goal is -- when, exactly, can we tell when racial discrimination has been mitigated and equal opportunity has been realized? And how much of it is not actually racial discrimination but rather economic discrimination?

BTW, y'know, it *is* possible to qualify discrimination as good -- it's not an inherently evil act. It's largely only evil when motivated by selfishness, resentment, jealousy, paranoia, or fear. I can't say that ardent supporters of Affirmative Action have any of those sentiments in mind, unless you're gonna argue that they hate and fear less than 1% of white applicants so much that they want to see them forced to attend Brown instead of Harvard.

[Jason McCullough]

Pssh, "ghetto" my ass; it's the uppity, edgy 20-something neighborhood (capital hill). Though it is a few blocks from the largely black part of town.

According to the Census, my Census tract (of 9000 people) is:

40% 25 to 34, the largest age group
60% men (large gay population)
88% nonfamily households (singles)
85% rentals
36% have a bachelors
14% have a masters
80% white, 5% black, 5% hispanic, 7% asian
Median family income of 40k, median nonfamily of 32k.

http://factfinder.census.gov/

[Doug Erickson]

Haha, Bothell has a median income of 70K. You're totally ghetto.

QUIT LOOKIN' FER A GUVMINT HANDOUT AN' PULL YERSELF UP BY YER BOOTSTRAPS LIKE AH DID YA LAZY BUM

[Jason McCullough]

Haha, Bothell has a median income of 70K. You're totally ghetto.

QUIT LOOKIN' FER A GUVMINT HANDOUT AN' PULL YERSELF UP BY YER
BOOTSTRAPS LIKE AH DID YA LAZY BUM

The correct answer is YOU'RE LIVING IN WHITEYTOWN, MOTHERFUCKER.

[bmulligan]

I was asking a question that you chose not to answer. The only logic behind the question was that if there are more minorities at the higher levels of government and industry after Affirmative Action programs were implemented, maybe they're doing what they were intended to do -- make sure minorities are better represented in these positions.


People should be able to rise to positions irregardless of race, not because of race. Should we have a certain percentage of homeless government workers to represent the homeless percentage of the general population? Better yet, since merit shouldn't have anything to do with the equation, maybe we should limit the NFL's black running backs to 12%. And limit the # of black quarterbacks to 12% and black coaches to 12%. Do you see how ridiculous and hypocritical these "reverse-discrimination" policies are?

My guess is that in the 60's when these kinds of programs began minorities were at a disadvantage due to race. When you have restaurants refusing service to blacks, it makes it hard to have a business lunch. When country clubs don't allow black members, it's hard to do business on the golf course.


Isn't everyone at some sort of disadvantage at one time or another? Maybe because of race, intelligence, financial status, hair color? Don't restauraunts refuse to serve people who can't pay? Is that fair? Don't some country clubs refuse women? is that fair? Should there be a law against every type of past discrimination? What about the Chineese and the Irish, nobody liked them either. Granted they were never slaves, but they were expendable, where as slaves were valuable and, one could argue, were treated better in many cases.

I say yes, discrimination is fair and it's our right. Feelings and attitudes can't be legislated away, doing so only alienates people and drives the behavior underground, never eliminating it but making it stronger and more violent.

Every choice we make in life is discriminatory. We don't make friends with smelly people. We don't open our doors to strangers. We cross the street at the corner instead of the middle, we only hire women with nice tits if we own a Hooters. If black business owners don't want to hire whites then more power to them. If a news network doesn't want to hire an ugly man, great. You could use your power of discrimination to ban users because of their behavior, or for any other reason you want.

It's just one of those things where there's a consensus that's there a society-wide problem

But there is no consensus on the problem, so how can there be on the solution? The AA supporters are quick to say the problem is 'complicated' , could never be described as simply minded as a bake sale. Yet their solution seems to me much more 'simple' than the problem itself.

[Brian Koontz]

Failed strictly because of ignorance like that of quatoria's. Shame.

Koontz, I've had the experience of Cleve for several years now, on various usenet groups and web forums. I've spoken to co-workers of his, in unrelated circumstances. Cleve is not an identity invented to "ferment debate" on "liberal QT3". You, as usual, have not the faintest fucking idea what you're talking about.

I wrote in this thread:

"Cleve Blakemore is so scared about possible outcomes of the racial divide that his entire identity is shaped by it."

Cleve is not an invented identity... that IS the identity he is offering. What I'm saying is that you do not understand the content of Blakemore's identity. Talking to people who also don't understand apparently didn't help you. The actual result of his identity is offense and ideally, debate. You are a man who can only be offended and cannot debate.

Being offended by something to the point where your mind shuts down is a weakness. You have this weakness in spades. I saw a total mess of a transvestite once (I assume a transforming one) and I had this reaction.

I'm excited by humans that I enjoy destroying. Its not exactly high on my priority list, but destroying Racism would be cool. Blakemore presented us the opportunity to do just that, or at least progress toward that goal.

Nice job fucking that up, weak man.

Racism can only be destroyed if it is debated.