PDA

View Full Version : Affirmative Action__


wdlove
Dec 5, 2002, 05:15 PM
Slavery was a black mark on American History. The 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments were passed to give blacks the same rights as all citizens.

Affirmative Action in the beginning was a good thing. Problem not enough blacks employed by government. Solution was to seek applications from alternative media radio, billboards, & black newspapers.

Today affirmative action has turned into racism. A lawsuit has been filed against the University of Michigan. As part of their admission process for a perfect SAT given 16 points, perfect Essay 12 points, blacks 20 points. The President at the University of Michigan says that their needs to be diversity in the class room. She says that intelligent students will learn more if their in a class with students that are less intelligent.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/134588289_scotus03.html

http://www.sltrib.com/12032002/nation_w/7814.htm

When someone has a major legal problem your going to want the best, one that graduated tops in his or her class. If you or your child is having brain surgery you are also going to want the best. Anyone that is honest would not say that they would want to go to the professional that got his education because of racial preference.

http://www.now.org/nnt/08-95/affirmhs.html

The current remedy has gone off track. We all want to be the best. Education needs to be totally reformed. What are your thoughts on this important issue.

Sun Baked
Dec 5, 2002, 05:21 PM
Everybody likes merit-based systems, whether it's applying for a job, getting raises/bonuses, applying for a school, etc.

But fail to treat the minority more equal than the rest, by lowering the standards for them - and they play the race card.

It's getting old.

Macette
Dec 5, 2002, 06:19 PM
Affirmative action considers the relative opportunities of different groups - black/white, men/women, gay/straight - and then makes judgements of ability based on how much they've made of those opportunities.

That means that you don't get a 'dumb' black person at med school (or whatever) - you get a really smart and really determined black person who's made the most of difficult circumstances (I'm not saying this applies to all black people) and came out the top of his or her tree.

People who struggle against adversity are EXACTLY the sorts of people who should be rewarded - I'd rather that type of person operating on my brain than somebody who's had all the good stuff in the world, done well at his private school (aided by his private exam coaching), and has cruised into college on his daddy's bank interest.

Theoretical equality (where women and men / blacks and whites have the same 'rights') is not the same as actual equality, where these people all have the same outcomes.

bousozoku
Dec 5, 2002, 08:27 PM
Speaking as a minority member, I find that the current situation is much better for most minorities, but certainly not equal.

Businesses are still top-heavy with males in management positions and most males get more than females for the same work. Whites tend to have a big share of technology jobs still, but that's changing. I see an awful lot of visa-holders, which should not be. We should provide for American citizens first.

As I'm Japanese and a naturalised citizen, I could claim my heritage in an effort to get an advantage, but I normally wouldn't because my work has been so good.

On the other hand, I've seen certain people use their minority status to keep a job indefinitely when they didn't deserve it and couldn't handle it.

There's got to be some way to define a closer balance to what the majority of people desire, which I believe is equal opportunity.

Rower_CPU
Dec 5, 2002, 08:31 PM
For a liberal, I actually think that AA was a poor implementation of a good idea.

AA turns/turned into "reverse" discrimination which is only moving the problem to a different group and not solving it.

Merit based is the only way to go, and leave nationality out of it.

whfsdude
Dec 5, 2002, 08:48 PM
The ****ing basters (USA) walked out of the UN racism conference.

jelloshotsrule
Dec 5, 2002, 08:50 PM
macette, you make a fine point about how one who's struggled and yet reached the top is better than one who's had it handed to them.

however, that doesn't apply here. nor does it apply most of the time in AA cases.

they aren't looking at everyone with 1500 sat scores, then looking at their essays and seeing that the black person went through this and that, and still did great in school and got good scored, and look at the whitey's paper and see that yadda yadda he's boring. and then hand the job/scholarship to the black person based on that... rather, they put minorities with say 1300 on the same level as a whitey with 1500....

that's not right.

not to say that standardized tests are a good way of determining, but that's just for example. they don't take 2 equal skill folks and determine based on how they got there. rather, they take 2 unequal skill folks and up the skill of the minority to compensate for... whatever.

anyhoo, word.

Macette
Dec 5, 2002, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
they aren't looking at everyone with 1500 sat scores, then looking at their essays and seeing that the black person went through this and that, and still did great in school and got good scored, and look at the whitey's paper and see that yadda yadda he's boring. and then hand the job/scholarship to the black person based on that...


yes, but what the ARE doing is essentially the same: they're looking, very broadly (because who's got time for anything but generalisations these days?), at the percentages of black people with tertiary educations, or high positions in corporations, or successful politcal careers, and making the (correct) assumption that black people don't have the same opportunities as white people, and THEN saying "well, it's time to give them an opportunity". That's all it is: opportunities for people who didn't have all the string of good fortunes that whities take for granted. It doesn't necessarily always mean that a hardworking white person's spot has been filled by a less 'qualified' black person, either. remember, qualifications don't necessarily have any bearing on how hard you've worked or how smart you are etc. often it's just about being in the right race at the right time...

what REALLY ****s me is when (as is beginning to happen in Australia, where education is rapidly being privatised along the lines of the American system) some dumbass rich kid gets a lower score than a really smart poor kid, but the rich kid gets a uni place because he/she can PAY for it. they promised us this wouldn't happen... and yet, it is.

macktheknife
Dec 6, 2002, 01:53 AM
I can see both sides of the AA arguement. I believe that the idea is a noble one, and--if implemented correctly--could level the playing field for those of a more disadvantage background. I do, however, believe that race-based AA is bound to get ugly and divisive. It is perhaps better that we drop AA altogether when it comes to admissions, hiring, etc. I had read an article on how some companies partner with a minority-owned business to win certain government contracts. The partnerships were mostly a sham: the minority "business owner" was a just a window dresser for the company to exploit an AA loophole. I could go on, but you get the idea.

What I cannot stand, however, are those of a more priviledge background making AA sound like something very terrible. Case in point is our President and his brother in Florida. Both came from very priviledged backgounds to get where they are, and both have attempted to rollback AA programs at one time or another. I mean, honestly, did GW get into Yale or Harvard business school on his own merit? (He was a C student--at best.) Did he become some CEO of some company based on his ability? Did he win public office based on his good work or his name? Let's face it: if he were black and was born in the ghettos, he'd be a crack addict in jail today waiting on death row in Texas (some sarcasm intended).

Another source of annoyance is the conservatives' drive to repeal the estate tax (dubbed by Republicans as the "death tax"). If conservatives argue against AA based on the idea that no one should benefit from an arbitrary advantage such as race, how could they support the repeal that would essentially protect an arbitrary advantage such as being born to rich parents? Yes, wealth is a factor most of us can control versus race, but one can see the logical inconsistency. Besides, the first million or so inherited is tax-free, so we're not talking about the government confiscating everything from your heirs. Even millionaries like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates' dad have urged Bush to keep the tax in place.

BenderBot1138
Dec 6, 2002, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by wdlove
...Slavery was a black mark on American History...

What exactly do you mean by "black" mark wedlove ;)

What happened? Did you get denied admission to something and decide to blame a minority group?

Smart people who get high marks in High School are already smart enough... lets give the others a chance... after all one of the purposes of education is to make you as smart as the smart people who tell us the dummies should be kept out.

:cool:

jayscheuerle
Dec 6, 2002, 08:35 AM
This type of program is just a short-sighted patch that breeds resentment and offers excuses to weak white folks. Minorities don't need a gift like this late in life. They need a change in the beginning in terms of decent, safe schooling from Kindergarten up with lots of swiftly administered discipline in terms of community service and expulsions. I'd gladly support "reparations" in the form of tax credits for adults who successfully complete government funded classes on economics, nutrition and family planning, all of which should be taught to kids by the 7th grade as well.

A gift, whether from a rich kid's mummy and daddy or a poor kid's government is still a gift- something that hasn't been earned. The expectations of gifts leads to a martyr mentality when they stop or are infringed upon. Let's raise a generation right and put an end to this nonsense. - j

BenderBot1138
Dec 6, 2002, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
This type of program is just a short-sighted ... They need a change ... I'd gladly support ... for adults who successfully complete...

... Let's raise a generation right and put an end to this nonsense. - j

Ya Vohl Mein Fuhrer!!!

John F. Kennedy said: "And we know where the road that is paved with those things leads...".

While jayscheuerle defines the rules by which americans who are living in unequal conditions must compete... time passes... and that is after all the goal of people like jayscheuerle... to make the disadvantaged wait.

Martin Luther King said in 1963 that the there were those who seek to delay justice by taking a delaying path. Justice does not mean waiting for people like jayscheuerle to define the rules by which the disadvantaged live. Justice does not mean accepting promises of equality in place of it's true meaning and existence.

What strikes me as absolute evidence of the lack of humanity about such statements as jayscheuerle makes is that the position of taking the slow path, of starting with children in kindergarten and doing it right is exactly the same delaying path that the priviledged took in 1963 ... and we know where the road that was paved with those intentions led.

1963 has passed. And now 40 passed years later, the priviledged still rule and still demand more rule obedience before justice can be had. That promised cheque of equality made by the priviledged in america in 1963 has come back marked insufficient funds, so how can anyone say lets take a slow approach starting with children.

In Germany, while disabled persons were being burned alive in ovens, others stood by and idly let it occur.

How, but by insensitive unthinking indoctrination can people hold opinions that attack equality. Drawn like mothes to the flame of conservativism, they take upon themselves any opinion that their racist and priviledged leaders espouse without pausing to consider their childrens futures.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal... but it is only by the living of our lives, that some live inequally. I find unsatisfying the words of those who misinterpret the words "content of character" to mean merit.

Mark Twain said, "Heaven goes by favor; If it went by merit, your dog would go in and you would stay out". So let freedom be the rule.

Believe me, that those of you who think you merit your existences are bloated and foolish. If you were born into minority status, poor, or having any other trait not in the majority, you would not open your mouths and crow as you do.

You do not merit your positions, you receive them as a gift from the society you live in, just as you do a good quality of life by being born in a certain country.

:cool:

jayscheuerle
Dec 6, 2002, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by BenderBot1138
While jayscheuerle defines the rules by which americans who are living in unequal conditions must compete... time passes... and that is after all the goal of people like jayscheuerle... to make the disadvantaged wait.

Thanks for stating my goals.

If proper schooling was instituted when affirmative action began, we'd be well into a generation of self-respecting, hopeful minorities. The city I live in is over 50% African American, the majority of which are undereducated and poorly reared. My 6 year old daughter's classroom is 75% Black and many of these kids are having the same repressive habits passed on to them that their parents did to them. This cycle will not be broken by gifts.

Unfortunately, the American mentality is very short-sighted and wants to see results immediately, regardless of their depth or permanence. One does not fix a crumbling foundation with a coat of paint, even 40 yrs. worth.

I could just as easlily say that the goal of people like Benderbot is to undermine the disadvantaged's confidence and to treat the symptom instead of the disease, but why be redundant? - j

zarathustra
Dec 6, 2002, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by bousozoku
Speaking as a minority member, I find that the current situation is much better for most minorities, but certainly not equal.

Businesses are still top-heavy with males in management positions and most males get more than females for the same work. Whites tend to have a big share of technology jobs still, but that's changing. I see an awful lot of visa-holders, which should not be. We should provide for American citizens first.

As I'm Japanese and a naturalised citizen, I could claim my heritage in an effort to get an advantage, but I normally wouldn't because my work has been so good.

On the other hand, I've seen certain people use their minority status to keep a job indefinitely when they didn't deserve it and couldn't handle it.

There's got to be some way to define a closer balance to what the majority of people desire, which I believe is equal opportunity.

I disagree with you on the VISA workers issue.

As you admitted, you were an immigrant (or your elders) at one point. As a matter of fact, everyone is an immigrant to this land on a broader scope, if you believe in the population theory of the Americas through the Behring straight.

It is very shallow to assume a "close the gate behind me" attitude. I have first hand experience with immigrants and immigration, and most of the employment based immigrants are extremely well educated and smart people.

While I agree that you should offer a particular job to an American first, if the immigrant is more qualified and you just can't fill the position, why not give it to him/her? In a way you would be lowering the "standards" to accomodate a national pride.

Most of them went through so much adversity to get to that point, that their determination almost puts the "naturalized citizens" who burn flags and whine against America to shame. We could all learn from the love they have for this country - most of them abandoned everything they had to have a better life. Of course there is always rotten apples (no pun) in the bunch who have their individual well being in the forefront.

Illegal immigration is a different story, though, and I won't even try to write about it for lack of space.

</rant>

BenderBot1138
Dec 6, 2002, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle


Thanks for stating my goals.

I could just as easlily say that the goal of people like Benderbot is to undermine the disadvantaged's confidence and to treat the symptom instead of the disease, but why be redundant? - j

Not really, I just think that people who believe blaming disadvantaged peoples' culture (I think you called them "repressive habits") as a method of justifying injustice, like jayscheuerle is attempting to do, should consider moving to a community where they would be more happy, like 1945 Germany.

You seem to feel satisfied to blame people who want justice and equality, like Benderbot, for your own miscalculating and nefarious opinions. But that only points to your unwillingness to take responsibility for your own opinions and obligations.

I have a great deal more money, toys, and oportunity than you jay, guaranteed, and I'm still far more capable of wanting to make a difference now, not later, as you propose. I just call it being human, but you can call it what ever you want based on your primary filter, which is some kind of hard assed conservatism.

:cool:

jrv3034
Dec 6, 2002, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
they aren't looking at everyone with 1500 sat scores, then looking at their essays and seeing that the black person went through this and that, and still did great in school and got good scored, and look at the whitey's paper and see that yadda yadda he's boring. and then hand the job/scholarship to the black person based on that... rather, they put minorities with say 1300 on the same level as a whitey with 1500....

that's not right.

not to say that standardized tests are a good way of determining, but that's just for example. they don't take 2 equal skill folks and determine based on how they got there. rather, they take 2 unequal skill folks and up the skill of the minority to compensate for... whatever.


OK, I can only speak for myself in this, but I think it represents a broader truth. I'm Puerto Rican, born and raised in Puerto Rico my whole life, until I graduated and went to college. I studied hard in High School, got good grades (A- or B+ most of the time), took the SAT, and did ok, FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESEN'T SPEAK ENGLISH AS A FIRST LANGUAGE. Now, without something like Affirmative Action, there's no way I would have gotten into the Ivy League school that I ended up attending. And, guess what? I did just as well, and maybe even better than a lot of the students that got in without AA. I took the same courses, the same exams, and was graded the same way as everyone else. The reason AA works is because it doesent apply different standards WHILE you're in school or at work; it applies them so you can get INTO school or work. While I was in college I didn't get graded any different than anyone else. If I failed, I failed. But I didn't. I was on par with the rest of my peers, and yet my SAT scores said otherwise. This is why Affirmative Action is STILL necessary in our society. Because the playing field is not equal. Be it Puerto Ricans, or African-Americans, or Asians, or Native-Americans, or Indians, the circumstances surrounding minorities(for the most part) simply do not allow them the same opportunities as white Americans.

jayscheuerle
Dec 6, 2002, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by BenderBot1138

Not really, I just think that people who believe blaming disadvantaged peoples' culture (I think you called them "repressive habits") as a method of justifying injustice, like jayscheuerle is attempting to do, should consider moving to a community where they would be more happy, like 1945 Germany.

which is some kind of hard assed conservatism.

:cool:
The air must be thin up on that high horse. I'm speaking from being immersed in this reality, working to make it better for those of all colors around me. You're coming off as an intellectual (one with no experience in that which he speaks) playing a game or mental exercise from your ivory tower.

Smacking your kids upside the head when they're out of line is not culture.

Sending them to school with soda and chips for lunch is not culture.

Letting their 10 yr old sister babysit for them (and their year old sibling) after school and into the night is not culture.

This list goes on and on. Why you think I'm blaming these people is beyond me. If I'm blaming anyone, it's society and the government for allowing its most unfortunate citizens to continue the type of behavior which is keeping them and theirs down. You seem to think that giving someone a fish is better than teaching them to fish. You're no friend of the downtrodden if you insist on perpetuating their ignorance by rewarding it. You give them no respect by dishing out pity and your plan of action will continue to repress them in perpetuity.

But you'll get their votes. Congratulations Congressman....

Sun Baked
Dec 6, 2002, 11:44 AM
Lowering the entry point for schools is one thing, lowering the actual job requirements is something completely different.

But then again, how long are you supposed to keep jobs open for minorities if they don't want the damn job - it happens.

What do you do? Hire the first moron that applies for the job if they're a minority, somebody that thinks cigarette breaks are 50 min. of every hour - an employee that threatens the other employees and employers of lawsuits, etc. if they complain or get fired (yes it happens).

Normally it's not this bad, but no matter who you are, corporate dead wood should be burned into ash. And replaced with a fresh new employee.

BenderBot1138
Dec 6, 2002, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle

Smacking your kids upside the head when they're out of line is not culture.


ok, so I see you are concerned, but here's the key: You've got to stop worrying about the imagined shortcomings you attribute to others, and focus on yourself today.

How can you generalize that certain groups of people "smack" their kids? or send them school with certain food? or improperly supervise their children.

No, you assume far too much. Others have just as much concern for their children as you do, but it's far too easy for you to attack programs as straw men that are still trying to make a difference.

What's dangerous about opinionis like yours, is that they attempt to focus attention on the mechanics of equality, and thus introduce severe overhead into the actual creation of equality.

Your opinions and desires can be seen as nothing more than resistance to eqaulity and justice. It is very sad indeed, because the result of such human competition was graphically witnessed just a little over a year ago in New York.

You desire to continue your competition, demanding others take classes in parenting etc etc etc, but you are wasting your time and the time of those who don't need your eyes over their shoulders.

No, I think you should stop. Stop thinking that equality is wrong. Think instead that Justice and Equality now is necessary, even if that means firing a few people to make room in good jobs for the disadvantaged.

:cool:

jayscheuerle
Dec 6, 2002, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by BenderBot1138
How can you generalize that certain groups of people "smack" their kids? or send them school with certain food? or improperly supervise their children.

No, you assume far too much. Others have just as much concern for their children as you do, but it's far too easy for you to attack programs as straw men that are still trying to make a difference.

:cool:

Dude. Are you a moron? Let me just repeat myself.

I live in the middle of this stuff. My wife volunteers at my daughter's charter school and SEE's the lunches. We go to playgrounds and SEE the disciplining, SEE the babysitting. We SEE lots of stuff (not just read about it). This doesn't imply that these folks don't have concern for their children, they're just IGNORANT to alternatives. SMACKING is what you do. MCDONALDS is what you eat. DOING YOUR HOMEWORK is acting WHITE!

A lot of these people ARE trying to better themselves. We SEE them at PTA meetings. We SEE them volunteer their time. We SEE them keep their kids in line. We also SEE that this is a large problem that falls more along economic lines than racial lines, but these lines are often very similar.

You are a devil in Messiah's clothes to these people. The straw men are people such as yourself who rely on the drawing power of short-term patches. Shame on you and your misguided pulpit. Come visit the trenches sometime. Live in them. And then try to figure out how to make them really WORK.

Alright, Senator?

BenderBot1138
Dec 6, 2002, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Everybody likes merit-based systems, whether it's applying for a job, getting raises/bonuses, applying for a school, etc.


This is an awesome observation... maybe we need to decide what "merit" actually is.

I think, the origin of the word has to do with a concept involving having a share in something. Perhaps the idea of having a share in, rather than some advantage over others, is the correct meaning of merit. I think people merit inclusion by their birth. You don't have to earn it.

I can't believe that anyone except those who are set to inherit benefits would believe in earning a place within it. The worst part is that those who are have political power generally desire a system that supports earning a place, rather than simply having one by virtue of birth.

That's awesome Sun Baked, really worth some thought.

:cool:

BenderBot1138
Dec 6, 2002, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle


Dude. Are you a moron? Let me just repeat myself.

I live in the middle of this stuff.

Wow, you've enlightened me...

I hope your wife doesn't hold your opinon since she is in direct contact with disadvantaged children and thus may affect their self-esteem.

You would be surprised just how similar your opinions are to Nazi German Eugenist thinking. You fool yourself far too easily by convincing yourself that others hold positions outside your more correct way of doing things.

I urge you to pick up a book to see just how similar all the things you are saying you know because you "live in the middle of" are to the rantings of Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf is a good start - Table Talk.

Greatly saddened by your position.

jayscheuerle
Dec 6, 2002, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by BenderBot1138

Greatly saddened by your position.

Happy to see you're taking the high road.

Get out of the book and into the world. It's a beautiful place, though nothing like you imagine.

alex_ant
Dec 6, 2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
This type of program is just a short-sighted patch that breeds resentment and offers excuses to weak white folks. Minorities don't need a gift like this late in life. They need a change in the beginning in terms of decent, safe schooling from Kindergarten up with lots of swiftly administered discipline in terms of community service and expulsions. I'd gladly support "reparations" in the form of tax credits for adults who successfully complete government funded classes on economics, nutrition and family planning, all of which should be taught to kids by the 7th grade as well.

A gift, whether from a rich kid's mummy and daddy or a poor kid's government is still a gift- something that hasn't been earned. The expectations of gifts leads to a martyr mentality when they stop or are infringed upon. Let's raise a generation right and put an end to this nonsense. - j
Amen to that. AA is a solution to a symptom of a problem, not a solution to a problem. AA compensates minorities for enduring adversity when we should be focusing on eliminating this adversity instead and leveling the playing field for people of every background.

alex_ant
Dec 6, 2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by BenderBot1138
While jayscheuerle defines the rules by which americans who are living in unequal conditions must compete... time passes... and that is after all the goal of people like jayscheuerle... to make the disadvantaged wait.

...

What strikes me as absolute evidence of the lack of humanity about such statements as jayscheuerle makes is that the position of taking the slow path, of starting with children in kindergarten and doing it right is exactly the same delaying path that the priviledged took in 1963 ... and we know where the road that was paved with those intentions led.
I don't agree with casting aside all current injustice and "starting fresh with the children," and I don't think jayscheuerle does, either. I don't want to make anyone wait. There's no reason we can't improve not only the conditions of the children, but the teens and the young adults and the adults and the elderly as well. The ultimate goal is the elimination of social injustice, and I want to see that goal achieved right this minute.

jrv3034
Dec 6, 2002, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
There's no reason we can't improve not only the conditions of the children, but the teens and the young adults and the adults and the elderly as well. The ultimate goal is the elimination of social injustice, and I want to see that goal achieved right this minute.

Very true, indeed. Of course AA is not the solution to the problem. However, it is necessary UNTIL a solution is found and implemented. If it relieves a symptom of the problem while the cure for the problem is found, better that than nothing.

bousozoku
Dec 6, 2002, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by zarathustra


I disagree with you on the VISA workers issue.

As you admitted, you were an immigrant (or your elders) at one point. As a matter of fact, everyone is an immigrant to this land on a broader scope, if you believe in the population theory of the Americas through the Behring straight.

It is very shallow to assume a "close the gate behind me" attitude. I have first hand experience with immigrants and immigration, and most of the employment based immigrants are extremely well educated and smart people.

While I agree that you should offer a particular job to an American first, if the immigrant is more qualified and you just can't fill the position, why not give it to him/her? In a way you would be lowering the "standards" to accomodate a national pride.

Most of them went through so much adversity to get to that point, that their determination almost puts the "naturalized citizens" who burn flags and whine against America to shame. We could all learn from the love they have for this country - most of them abandoned everything they had to have a better life. Of course there is always rotten apples (no pun) in the bunch who have their individual well being in the forefront.

Illegal immigration is a different story, though, and I won't even try to write about it for lack of space.

</rant>

Sorry, I didn't state this completely or correctly.

These visa holders are not immigrants. They are citizens of other countries who never intend to do anything other than work here and take the money back to their own country.

I do not deny anyone who, in good faith, wishes to become a citizen.

You said it well considering the available information though. :)

wdlove
Dec 9, 2002, 06:43 PM
"Diversity is the anthesis of excellance" Jay Severin, Conservative Talkshow Host. Diversity as used by the PC crowd. This is all theoretical till you 4 year old need brain surgery. "Someone calculated that a white student with the same resume as a black student would have a 171 to1 chance at being admitted to the University of Michigan.

The teachers union doesn't want students to have their feelings hurt. At a school her in MA, elementary level all students the 1st grading period are to get a B, means meeting standards. The 2nd period an I for improving above standards.

Diversity is prevelant throughout all media, there are people hurting, they need our help. No longer PC to work hard & get good grades at the expense of others, might hurt their feelings!