Bush againgst blacks and latin prefernce at MSU

[Kid Red]

Afirmative action at Michegon State university would give minorities preference and Bush is againgst that.

President Bush plans to challenge a University of Michigan program that gives preference to minority students, telling the Supreme Court there are better ways to promote diversity, administration officials said Wednesday.

Justice Department and White House attorneys, acting on Bush's orders, were preparing a brief arguing against programs that gave black and Hispanic students an edge when applying to the university and its law school.

Why? Haven't whites had the advantage long enough? The fact is, without programs like this, a lot of minorities would be left out in the cold. This is Bush showing his true racist redneck colors and he's taking it to the supreme court so i hope this gets a lot of press as the Rebuplicans tried to paint themsleves a color blind image this past election. This just another reason for me to hate Bush.

[Mal]

Why is this so bad? Isn't it just as bad to give the minorities preference over the majority as it is the other way around? I don't think whites (who are not really much of a majority anymore anyways) are any less entitled to things like college than hispanics and blacks. Whites certainly shouldn't be looked over because there are black people applying. I think the best thing that could happen in this case is for race not even to be supplied by college applicants. If the approval board doesn't even know what color the applicants skin is, it can't affect their decision. Bush is exactly right in opposing this, the white people are far more persecuted today than the so-called minorities. Equality is the goal, not driving the majority into the ground so that the minorities don't have to feel so bad about themselves.

JW

[Cursor]

I agree. I think race shouldn't even come into play. Let the best applicants win. It should be based on grades, activities, and scholarship; not race. Affirmative Action does not work. Even California, who started the Affirmative Action programs have more or less scrapped them for being unfair.

[rainman::|:|]

the question you have to ask yourself here is: are you a reparationist, or an equalist? if you truely want racial issues to be a thing of the past, you can't demand reparations in any form, that just prolongs things. Now i'm not saying we should just forget what's happened in the past and move on, but what we should do is continually learn from it and move on.

and yes, giving minorities preferencial treatment on purpose is a form of reparationism. All you're doing is saying that since they did it to you, you can do it to them. Which actually *justifies* what they did to you in the first place...

:)
pnw

[diorio]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
the question you have to ask yourself here is: are you a reparationist, or an equalist? if you truely want racial issues to be a thing of the past, you can't demand reparations in any form, that just prolongs things. Now i'm not saying we should just forget what's happened in the past and move on, but what we should do is continually learn from it and move on.

and yes, giving minorities preferencial treatment on purpose is a form of reparationism. All you're doing is saying that since they did it to you, you can do it to them. Which actually *justifies* what they did to you in the first place...

:)
pnw

That is exactly it. If one demands programs that favor minorities, you are a reparationist, and being racist against whites. Why not let the best applicant win? Why base it on rase or color? By promoting programs that favor minorities, you are promoting racism.

[LethalWolfe]

Afirmative action is BS.

(everyone else pretty much covered th bases, but I still wanted to add something to the thread :))

Lethal

[sturm375]

I saw this on the news the other day. Here is what is wrong with U of M's way of doing things. They use a point based system where, if I remember correctly, 150 pts get you in. A perfect SAT score nets you 15 points, while being a minority nets you 20 points.

So you can be the smartest in your school, get a perfect SAT, and the minority that got zip on the SATs is already 5 pts ahead. This to me does not encourage working hard for a good life.

[Durandal7]

I think that the very policy (Michigan State's) is insulting to blacks and hispanics by implying that they are too dumb to get into college on their own merit.

[Choppaface]

most colleges will give any student who can demonstrate difficulties in school a break. If students mention financial difficulties, shortcomings of their public school, dangerous living environments, family problems etc etc the admissions officer will usually give the applicant a break. while this might be a relatively fair system, it takes time to figure out how difficult things were for a student. it's a lot easier to just use a point system, and incorporate into it an affirmative action program. though it's probably not as fair, at least it gives some recognition to those minority students who suffer from these harsh living conditions. if they removed racial consideration in this point system, it wouldn't be fair for the these students. either way, with or without the 20 points, it's not fair, but the admissions game isn't a fair game either. indeed they could do a better job, but nobody has really found the best way to efficiently process thousands of applications and still get the most of out each app. the UC system will take on more than 30,000 apps this year. that's >30,000 one-to-two-page essays, sets of SAT/SATII scores, activity lists, and transcripts to read, and they all need to be processed in a few months. Harvard will get ~18,000, and their app has a lot more stuff, including two teacher recs. though it's nice to debate about affirmative action, admissions departments are also very concerned about efficiency, so they often need to go with what's practical.

Michigan's weighting is pretty high, though... it seems a bit of an extreme. Most colleges don't offer that big of a boost.

[mymemory]

Well, people shuld be reconize by their social security number andgrades and that is it!!!

I read an article about people with color names do not receive phone calls from companies as people with white names.

So... I do not know, I'm too tired today.:o

[zarathustra]

Originally posted by Choppaface
most colleges will give any student who can demonstrate difficulties in school a break. If students mention financial difficulties, shortcomings of their public school, dangerous living environments, family problems etc etc the admissions officer will usually give the applicant a break. while this might be a relatively fair system, it takes time to figure out how difficult things were for a student. it's a lot easier to just use a point system, and incorporate into it an affirmative action program. though it's probably not as fair, at least it gives some recognition to those minority students who suffer from these harsh living conditions.

They showed on CNN the point system, and they can award 20 points for racial background and 20 points for social shortcomings. That's 40 points - if someone is a minority and poor.

If you come from less then average income white family (maybe living in an urban area, combined income of $40.000), you probably get 0 points, even though you put up with same/similar living conditioins as minorities.

[zarathustra]

Originally posted by mymemory
I read an article about people with color names do not receive phone calls from companies as people with white names.

Color names? You mean Brown, White, Black, etc.? That has got to be one of the weirdest assumptions.

There is a lot of names (for minorities) that were derived from their owners' names once they were freed, that's why Jackson, Brown, Smith, etc. is so prevalent in both black and white communities. If you are referring to hispanic names, yes, you could be correct.

Still, you shouldn't fart in a room and leave it hanging - what was your point with the above post???

[cubist]

That sounds like an advantage to me. I'm sick and tired of telemarketers. Sign me up for one of those color names. How about Frank Fuschia?

[Roger1]

A perfect SAT score nets you 15 points, while being a minority nets you 20 points.


I believe the numbers were 12 and 20, in that order

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by Roger1
A perfect SAT score nets you 15 points, while being a minority nets you 20 points.


I believe the numbers were 12 and 20, in that order

You're correct, 12 for perfect SAT and 20 for being a minority.

American University in DC was like this, I applied there for graduate school as did another student in my program in undergrad. I'm white and he was black. I had a higher GPA and received a better score on my GRE's.

He got into American University and I didn't. I spoke to someone from the college and he mentioned to me how they favor minorities because when the policy was first instituted there were little minorities in the program. When I applied minorities were the majority of students in the program. I didn't worry about it because I got into George Washington as well (unfortunately I was wait listed at Georgetown :().

[DrGrip84]

NOTE: If you got a perfect score on your SAT, you got into MSU...simple as that.

Reverse discrimination? GET OVER YOURSELF! As a white man, I will never know what it is like to be a minority. Knowing that I have certain advantages that most non-whites do not, I am more than willing to give those people the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. If you're white, and got turned down by a school, you have a better shot at getting accepted to another similar university than, say, an African American.

Plus, I got in to MSU w/o a perfect SAT/ACT score :cool:

[alset]

Originally posted by Kid Red
Why? Haven't whites had the advantage long enough?

Oh, come on! What chance have white males had for advancement in this country? Really! What with all the tariffs on the slave trade, many of our ancestors hardly made a living!

While we're at it, what is it with women these days, thinking they have a right to vote? We'll show them!

(No - I am not serious - Don't flame me!)

Dan

[dabirdwell]

It is a complicated situation to have limited educational resources and to have the social divisions that exist in the United States.

Most of the problems addressed by social programs in the US (including those addressed by affirmative action) are in actuality addresing a symptom of a failure in one of two policy areas, education or health care. Education and health care should be the primary provisions of the federal government for citizens. Everyone should be able to go to a physician and be treated; everyone should be able to get a real education, one based on critical thinking and not memorization.

[rainman::|:|]

I'll say this. And i don't mean to stir up another sensitive topic, just have to give my true point of view. I belong to a group of people that's still discriminated against; it's quite legal to do so in an overwhelming majority of cities and states across the USA. I'm not allowed to marry my partner of 2 years, not even entitled to legal recognition. I can get fired for it, with no other reason. I'm banned from selling or donating plasma or blood. And i face social stigma in nearly any situation, to the point where there have been times where my life itself was in danger. But these things are very slowly changing; eventually with any luck they'll be gone. I equate the current situation of homosexuals with the past struggles for equality of both different races and women, and tho this seems rather severe to some people, i assure you it's not to us. My point is, after the discrimination is gone, i certainly won't want any affirmative action for gay people. Just because other people make my life more difficult, and will probably continue to do so beyond the point where it's illegal to do so, doesn't mean i want the government to make my life easier by putting me ahead of anyone else. It just slows down the process whereby the whole thing is not an issue in society anymore. If i want equality under the law, i want just that, nothing more. People can hold on to their ignorant ideals as long as they want, i'll have protection under the law for the most part. All i stand to gain in affirmative action is alienating the people i'm trying to get to accept me, making people upset who would have not been otherwise. It just doesn't make sense for anyone to want to gain a little in the present while sacraficing a great deal in the long run. Time, not affirmative action, is our best weapon against bigotry.

pnw

[Backtothemac]

well, I said I wasn't coming into these threads any longer, but....

Look, this is the problem with Affirmative Action. It breeds racism. At UofM for example they are wanting to give 20 points to students that are black for admission consideration. You only get 12 points for a perfect score on the SAT. So being black is more important than being perfect on the SAT. That is crazy. So, the students there will look down, either knowingly, or unknowingly on black students. It causes hate. It causes predjudice!

AA doesn't work, it never will, and it is wrong in the form that Michigan is using it. That is a quota. Not AA. How about equal opportunity instead. How about giving minorities opportunity as children to better themselves as schools that are better than the innercity schools through vouchers? Wait, dems don't like that because it would actually empower one of their consituancies.

[wdlove]

I applaud President Bush on his speech yesterday, on the side of the Constitution. Most Americans agree with him, it's the Democrat party that is out of step.

Poll Washington Post 84% Asians, 86% Hispanics, 88% Blacks, & 92% whites are against Affirmative action. The way it is practiced today, racism, a policy based on race.

Bush is correct admission into a college should be on merit.

[sturm375]

Originally posted by wdlove
I applaud President Bush on his speech yesterday, on the side of the Constitution. Most Americans agree with him, it's the Democrat party that is out of step.

Poll Washington Post 84% Asians, 86% Hispanics, 88% Blacks, & 92% whites are against Affirmative action. The way it is practiced today, racism, a policy based on race.

Bush is correct admission into a college should be on merit.

I agree, I only wish it had come from somebody who had a better record of adhearing to the Constitution. But that is for another time, and another debate.

[MacUser1]

Originally posted by skywalker
Why is this so bad? Isn't it just as bad to give the minorities preference over the majority as it is the other way around? I don't think whites (who are not really much of a majority anymore anyways) are any less entitled to things like college than hispanics and blacks. Whites certainly shouldn't be looked over because there are black people applying. I think the best thing that could happen in this case is for race not even to be supplied by college applicants. If the approval board doesn't even know what color the applicants skin is, it can't affect their decision. Bush is exactly right in opposing this, the white people are far more persecuted today than the so-called minorities. Equality is the goal, not driving the majority into the ground so that the minorities don't have to feel so bad about themselves.

JW

My thoughts exactly!

[TimDaddy]

Originally posted by Kid Red
. This is Bush showing his true racist redneck colors and he's taking it to the supreme court so i hope this gets a lot of press as the Rebuplicans tried to paint themsleves a color blind image this past election. This just another reason for me to hate Bush.

Being against affirmative action does NOT make one a racist. Agree with the policy or not, this does not prove that anyone is a racist. Give it up.

[Roger1]

A better way for equality would be the way (I believe) Texas and Califorinia do it. They guarantee any student who is in the top 10% of their high school class, are guaranteed a slot in any of the states universities. Why couldn't we do this on a national level, but make it the top 1% or 2% of students in the nations high schools? Do this and it would eliminate the race factor.

Yes there will be details that need to be worked out, but I think it could be done.

(edit for clarification)

[SPG]

Although I am not a big fan of affirmative action, I just wanted to let all the other white males on this board to know that descrimination and unequal opportunity are still rampant in our society.
My friend calls about 10 apartments and gets no calls back. I call the same 10 the next day and get 8 calls back, hmm the only difference is an accent.

[Taft]

First, I'm against Affirmative Action in any of the incarnations I've seen.

Second, I'm for the idea of creating a fair system of admissions that would take into account POTENTIAL ABILITY instead of PRESENT KNOWLEDGE or ability. The idea is that social status plays a huge part in how effective and complete your education is. The poor--the majority of which are minorities--are at a huge disadvantage in terms of education. While I believe this should be taken into account, it shouldn't be done as a quota system. Rather, there needs to be some ability to judge a candidates potential and eleminate the advantages some candidates have had through their early years.

Third, President Bush shoud in no way be involved in the Supreme Courts decision in this case. I believe the court should bar his administration's testimony or "friend of the court" filing. To not do so, is in my opinion, a perversion of justice. This administration has taken it upon themselves to try to influence the courts decision. They should stay the hell away from the case and let the Supreme Court do its job.

The supreme court should bar unaffiliated parties (parties without any connection with the case or expertise in the area the case is dealing in) from trying to push their weight around and influencing their decision. ESPECIALLY parties with considerable influence, such as the office of the President.

While I agree that a ruling needs to be made, the President should have NO INFLUENCE in that decision.

Taft

[Taft]

Also, I'd just like to point out that MSU != U of M.

Michigan State University and University of Michigan are two distinct educational institutions. This case deals only with the U of M, though the decision could effect universities across the country.

Taft

[Roger1]

Also, I'd just like to point out that MSU != U of M.

Michigan State University and University of Michigan are two distinct educational institutions. This case deals only with the U of M, though the decision could effect universities across the country.

Taft
Good Job! I forgot to correct them in my post:p

Go Green! No! Wait! Go Blue! No! Oh, never mind:D

[wdlove]

Martin Luther King himself in his famous speech, said that "a man should not be judged by the color of his skin but by his character. I think the King of 1963 along with JFK would have stood with George Bush yesterday. They would be on the side of the majority of Americans. It's the Liberals that have left view of most Americans. they prefer to continue to foster racism!

"I Have A Dream"
by Martin Luther King, Jr,

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

Delivered on the steps at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963. Source: Martin Luther King, Jr: The Peaceful Warrior, Pocket Books, NY 1968

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.

One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.

So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.

So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights.

The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" we can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

[SPG]

wdlove, YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Read what you wrote, then read what Martin Luther King said. Then read both again, and maybe even again untill you understand that what bush is doing is wholly contrary to what Martin Luther King stood for.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Taft
First, I'm against Affirmative Action in any of the incarnations I've seen.

Second, I'm for the idea of creating a fair system of admissions that would take into account POTENTIAL ABILITY instead of PRESENT KNOWLEDGE or ability...

Great idea. Now how do we pull it off?
I am not dismissing your idea, but it is one of the great paradoxes of our time. How do we deal with a corrupt past in a slightly less corrupt present without corrupting the future?
Do we leave things as they are and claim to live in a colorblind world where the actions of our past have sealed the fate of those not yet born? Do we attempt to correct the evils of the past with action now in hope that we can save the future generations from all this, and in the process create not a colorblind society but a world of true equal opportunity?

[wdlove]

Originally posted by SPG
wdlove, YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Read what you wrote, then read what Martin Luther King said. Then read both again, and maybe even again untill you understand that what bush is doing is wholly contrary to what Martin Luther King stood for.

You sir are the one that is not reading and understanding. You should be ashamed of yourself for your above comment. Liberals feel and cannot debate, only get angry instead and call people names! :mad:

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. "

[Taft]

Originally posted by SPG


Great idea. Now how do we pull it off?
I am not dismissing your idea, but it is one of the great paradoxes of our time. How do we deal with a corrupt past in a slightly less corrupt present without corrupting the future?
Do we leave things as they are and claim to live in a colorblind world where the actions of our past have sealed the fate of those not yet born? Do we attempt to correct the evils of the past with action now in hope that we can save the future generations from all this, and in the process create not a colorblind society but a world of true equal opportunity?

I understand it isn't an easy process. But right now, they look at your ethnicity, and then determine how many extra points you get. Then, if they haven't met their quota, maybe they'll add more points to the minorities until they do meet the quote.

Plus, background, and their opportunity to get a good education doesn't factor into it. Lets say there was a black guy from a nice middle class neighborhood where the schools were great. And there's a white guy from a poor neighborhood on the south side of Chicago with no access to a decent school. In this case, the white guy has two strikes against him: he's white, and he's poor with no access to a decent education. He's got no chance to get into college when compared to the black guy from a good neighborhood.

What would make more sense is to evaluate each candidate on a more flexible scale. Create tests to measure aptitude over knowledge. Be able to weight those test scores with the quality of schools and the person's "opportunity" score.

I think we need more sophisticated methods of judging a candidates worth. With better methods you focus more on quantifiable characteristics of a candidates worth, effectively taking away an admissions officer's ability to discriminate based on race AND you enable diversity by allowing the best candidates from all walks of life to succeed.

Of course, none of this is possible without change at a community level. Raising the bar on the quality of a less fortunate person's education and reducing the negative influences often present in bad neighborhoods would go a long way to eliminating the need for affirmative action.

Taft

[Taft]

Originally posted by wdlove


You sir are the one that is not reading an understanding. You should be ashamed of yourself for your above comment. Liberals feel and cannot debate, only get angry instead call call people names! :mad:

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. "

But we must face facts. The vision Dr. King had has not yet come to pass. Not by a long shot.

First, racism still exists. This puts minorities at a big disadvantage. Affirmative action tries to set that straight. At its heart its a good concept, but it is flawed in practice. To say that it promotes racism is a big stretch, but it is flawed.

Second, how to judge a person by his character is a tricky matter. I would say that current admissions policies don't even come close to accurately judging a persons abilities. And if you aren't fairly judging a person's character or abilities, then what are you judging?? I would say that you are judging some bastardized combination of the candidates past priviledge and current knowledge.

If a cadidate has never had the opportunity to succeed, how can we say that cadidate WILL never succeed? That is the core problem that affirmative action tries to address. Because blacks have been oppressed in the past and are currently discriminated against, it is, on average, harder for a black person to succeed than a white person.

In a perfect world, we would be able to end discrimination and the average black neighborhood would be as affluent as the average white neighborhood. This isn't a perfect world. Maybe we should try to fix it??

Taft

PS. Hows that for debate?? Though I did like your generalization of all liberals as unthinking, only-feeling, tree-hugging hippies. Real good. :rolleyes:

[SPG]

Originally posted by wdlove


You sir are the one that is not reading and understanding. You should be ashamed of yourself for your above comment. Liberals feel and cannot debate, only get angry instead and call people names! :mad:

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. "

wd, I have yet to see you offer a real debate. You always step in with the latest poll results or a bastardization of someone's point as in with the quote of Martin Luther King.
I am not ashamed of my post, and you Ma'am are the poopeyhead!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[mcrain]

Originally posted by DrGrip84
NOTE: If you got a perfect score on your SAT, you got into MSU...simple as that.

Reverse discrimination? GET OVER YOURSELF! As a white man, I will never know what it is like to be a minority. Knowing that I have certain advantages that most non-whites do not, I am more than willing to give those people the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. If you're white, and got turned down by a school, you have a better shot at getting accepted to another similar university than, say, an African American.

Plus, I got in to MSU w/o a perfect SAT/ACT score :cool:

Of course, all you need is a pulse to get into Moo U.

Go Blue!

[Taft]

Originally posted by mcrain


Of course, all you need is a pulse to get into Moo U.

Go Blue!

Ouch!

I'm not saying it isn't true. But....ouch!

Taft

[wdlove]

Originally posted by SPG


wd, I have yet to see you offer a real debate. You always step in with the latest poll results or a bastardization of someone's point as in with the quote of Martin Luther King.
I am not ashamed of my post, and you Ma'am are the poopeyhead!:mad: :mad: :mad:

I think you need to take a close look in the mirror. I happen to be make also be a male. Again liberals only feel, tend to call anyone that they disagree with them names.

Affimative action as practiced is racism, CK the dictionary. Classical use of the definition!

It was a good thing when orginally setup. It was to make sure that blacks in Washington DC were aware of Federal jobs available. They advertised in alternative media that would reach minorities. It was not to be used to as a quota system. The Democrat party at the time agreed. Lyndon Johnson is the one that changed the party to one of racism, transfer of wealth. Felt that is was proper to send agents each Friday to steal from American Citizens against our will.

[Taft]

Originally posted by wdlove


I think you need to take a close look in the mirror. I happen to be make also be a male. Again liberals only feel, tend to call anyone that they disagree with them names.

Affimative action as practiced is racism, CK the dictionary. Classical use of the definition!

It was a good thing when orginally setup. It was to make sure that blacks in Washington DC were aware of Federal jobs available. They advertised in alternative media that would reach minorities. It was not to be used to as a quota system. The Democrat party at the time agreed. Lyndon Johnson is the one that changed the party to one of racism, transfer of wealth. Felt that is was proper to send agents each Friday to steal from American Citizens against our will.

You got some serious issues, dude. As much as I don't like EITHER party, I would never go so far as to call one racist.

You die-hard pary loyalists need to do a reality check. Shake those conspiracy theories out of your head.

Taft

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Taft


You got some serious issues, dude. As much as I don't like EITHER party, I would never go so far as to call one racist.

You die-hard pary loyalists need to do a reality check. Shake those conspiracy theories out of your head.

Taft

I applaud you for stating your view in proper English, thank you!

It's not the person that is a racist, but their action as using a policy based on race. The Constitution is for individual rights, attaining of a goal on you own merit!!

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by wdlove
The Constitution is for individual rights, attaining of a goal on you own merit!!

do you think bush attained entrance to yale on his own merit?

[Kethoticus]

...and hopefully contribute a couple of cents to the debate...
the university's policy basically yells out that two wrongs do make a right. And that twisted logic is what constitutes affirmative action. It is affirmative action and other policies like it that prolong the very thing they're supposed to be killing off.

[rainman::|:|]

Colleges that favor children of alumni do it for the specific reason of wanting to have an entire line of benefactors. If a family has been going to a college for generations, it's a pretty good bet that they're making signifigant donations to the insitution. That said, it's not fair at all. This kind of thing prevents kids from doing better in life than their current situation, from ascending in life. But it's usually a policy that the most prestigious colleges have, like you can't get into Yale because of this, so you have to go to Brown. I don't think this kind of thing impacts 99% of americans, which is why it's never addressed...

pnw

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
like you can't get into Yale because of this, so you have to go to Brown.

i don't think brown would be excluded from such a policy. ;) though i can't imagine many schools being worse about it than yale or princeton

my dog was humping the interviewer's arm so i had no shot at getting into brown... ha. actually maybe i got wait listed... oh well

[Actuary]

Originally posted by Taft
Third, President Bush shoud in no way be involved in the Supreme Courts decision in this case. I believe the court should bar his administration's testimony or "friend of the court" filing. To not do so, is in my opinion, a perversion of justice. This administration has taken it upon themselves to try to influence the courts decision. They should stay the hell away from the case and let the Supreme Court do its job.

The supreme court should bar unaffiliated parties (parties without any connection with the case or expertise in the area the case is dealing in) from trying to push their weight around and influencing their decision. ESPECIALLY parties with considerable influence, such as the office of the President.

While I agree that a ruling needs to be made, the President should have NO INFLUENCE in that decision.
The Bush administration did not have to file its friend-of-the-court briefs, but such a move is a common practice for high-profile cases. [CNN 1/17/03]

It is a politically sensitive issue for the president and Republicans, who have been trying to reach out to minorities -- especially in the wake of the controversy surrounding Sen. Trent Lott's comments praising former Sen. Strom Thurmond's segregationist 1948 presidential bid. [CNN 1/17/03]

And now some of my own words :)
It seems to me that the president really had no choice but to file the briefs. The easier thing to do would be to keep silent in the issue, with the Lott situation and the senitive race issues with republicans. I believe he was honest in his views (in which I aggree) but was pressured to take a stance. The Supreme court will do its job to its ability with or without the brief.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Actuary

The Bush administration did not have to file its friend-of-the-court briefs, but such a move is a common practice for high-profile cases. [CNN 1/17/03]

It is a politically sensitive issue for the president and Republicans, who have been trying to reach out to minorities -- especially in the wake of the controversy surrounding Sen. Trent Lott's comments praising former Sen. Strom Thurmond's segregationist 1948 presidential bid. [CNN 1/17/03]

And now some of my own words :)
It seems to me that the president really had no choice but to file the briefs. The easier thing to do would be to keep silent in the issue, with the Lott situation and the senitive race issues with republicans. I believe he was honest in his views (in which I aggree) but was pressured to take a stance. The Supreme court will do its job to its ability with or without the brief.

I understand this is common practice in high profile cases, I just don't think its right.

By doing this, the president is trying to accomplish two things. First, he is trying to enhance his political image by attaching himself to (and taking a side in) an important case. Second, he is attempting to influence the opinion of the court by filing his briefing.

The reason this shouldn't be allowed is simple: the president and his administration is no more qualified than you or me to make a determination on the legal aspects of this case. I've always found this kind of thing of questionable ethics. Too much mixing of the different braches of our government. The executive branch should not be involved in judging and interpreting our laws. Thats what the judicial branch is for.

Like I said before, the president should stay the hell out of this type of matter. The outcome of this case should be determined independant of ANY type of interference form the executive branch. And it should be the courts perogative to involve a member of the executive branch. The president should never be able to impose his opinion on the court, even if his opinion isn't conciously considered by the judges.

Taft

[Actuary]

Originally posted by Taft
By doing this, the president is trying to accomplish two things. First, he is trying to enhance his political image by attaching himself to (and taking a side in) an important case. Second, he is attempting to influence the opinion of the court by filing his briefing.
...
Like I said before, the president should stay the hell out of this type of matter. The outcome of this case should be determined independant of ANY type of interference form the executive branch. And it should be the courts perogative to involve a member of the executive branch. The president should never be able to impose his opinion on the court, even if his opinion isn't conciously considered by the judges.
First, I was trying to say before that I don't think that the president believes that filing the breifs would enhance his political position in any way. In fact I believe that he took a great risk by exposing himself to opposition. His party was already vulnerable on the race issues and this stance probably would not help and probably would not have been taken without pressure. But, it is the correct stance to take for equality no matter which party or race you belong to.

Second, I believe it is our right as voters to know what the leader of our country feels on important issues like this. I don't think that he is influencing the opinion of the court by sharing his views. It does not interfere because it does not impose anything. It is merely traditional and the breifs will not change the supreme court's legal judgement. I understand that this is just your opinion and I respect it, but I disagree.

[SPG]

Why would bush piss off the minority voters with this brief?
Wrong question. What does bush stand to gain by doing this, especially after having to step in and take away the senate leadership crown from Lott?
Well, now he appeases all the other "conservative" "state's rights" (read: racist, white) voters of the republican party. Besides, the minority voters don't vote for him anyway. Now that you mention it the majority of voters didn't vote for him either.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by wdlove
The Constitution is for individual rights, attaining of a goal on you own merit!!

WRONG!

The Constitution is the document which defines how we as a people live together. It is a document that shapes society and the rules under which we live. It happens to guarantee some individual rights as part of those rules, but the document itself is NOT for individual rights. That's way too simplistic a view. Actually, it's way too spun a view.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
Colleges that favor children of alumni do it for the specific reason of wanting to have an entire line of benefactors. ... That said, it's not fair at all. ... I don't think this kind of thing impacts 99% of americans, which is why it's never addressed...

pnw

As we well know, GWB is all about taking care of the 1%

It is ironic that he would be against affirmative action when he benefited from his father's name at Yale.