Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (215303)	1/17/2003 10:29:35 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 436258

<<...Michigan seems to have its act together much better than most...>> I would agree with you <G>. -s2

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (215303)	1/18/2003 1:22:12 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 436258

An Anti-Quota Smoke Screen Lead Editorial The New York Times January 18, 2003 The Bush administration sacrificed truth for political gain this week when it filed legal briefs urging the Supreme Court to overturn the University of Michigan's use of racial "quotas" in admissions. Michigan's admissions system does not use racial quotas. But the administration has clearly decided the best way to appease its right-wing supporters without alienating the rest of the country is to disguise its anti-affirmative-action agenda as an anti-quota crusade. The administration should start leveling with the American people about race, and it should stop trying to turn back the clock. President Bush said this week that Michigan's policies were fatally flawed because they "amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students based solely on their race." The administration has fixed on the word "quota" because it has long been political kryptonite. Pollsters know that many Americans who say they favor "affirmative action" flip sides when asked about "racial quotas." But "quota" has a specific meaning, and the University of Michigan's admissions policies do not meet it. In University of California Regents v. Bakke, the landmark 1978 case that upheld affirmative action while striking down quotas, the Supreme Court invalidated a medical school admissions system that set aside 16 "special admissions" places in the class, which invariably went to minorities. At Michigan, in both undergraduate and law school admissions, all applicants apply for all positions in the class. The university gives applicants extra points for belonging to an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority. But it also gives diversity points to applicants who come from an underrepresented part of the state, like Michigan's largely white Upper Peninsula, scholarship athletes, and men in the nursing program. The administration has suggested that the University of Michigan's program is unusually flawed. In fact, most highly selective educational institutions rely on similar admissions criteria. If the Supreme Court holds Michigan's procedures to be unconstitutional, it will force an overhaul in admissions policies nationwide. Mr. Bush insisted this week that he strongly supports "racial diversity in higher education." But it does no good to support having underrepresented minorities in selective colleges and graduate schools without providing mechanisms that will get them there. President Bush singled out for praise programs in California, Texas and Florida that guarantee college admission to graduates in the top 10 percent of every high school. But since those programs apply only at the high school level, they cannot ensure minority access to graduate and professional schools, a key issue in the Michigan case. They are also flawed because they rely on segregated elementary and secondary education to integrate higher education. In its briefs, the Bush administration carefully avoided saying whether it supports Bakke. If the administration's quarrel is truly only with quotas, it should urge the Supreme Court to reaffirm that important case, and to uphold admissions plans that use race as only one diversity factor among many. nytimes.com

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (215303)	1/18/2003 10:51:27 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 436258

Let colleges, universities use their best judgment on admissions By Michael S. McPherson Editorial The Minneapolis Star Tribune Published Jan. 17, 2003 This week the president and the attorney general weighed in on the side of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court's consideration of the University of Michigan case concerning affirmative action. It is my view that responsible affirmative action policies in college admission have served our nation, our state and Macalester College in particular very well. I urge our leaders in Washington to support the University of Michigan in its defense of affirmative action before the Supreme Court. At stake here is the ability of America's colleges and universities to exercise their own autonomous judgment in selecting students for admission to their institutions. At Macalester, we certainly consider high school academic performance and grades on standardized tests like the SAT, but we also consider a wide range of other factors, ranging from geographical origins to personal and academic interests, artistic commitments and accomplishments, intellectual engagements and perspectives, and others. We use racial background as one factor among many in building a class who will be able to learn from and teach one another. We don't view admission to Macalester as analogous to winning a contest, where the "prize" goes to the highest scorer, but rather as an opportunity to join in and contribute to a learning community. We believe that enrolling a class that is diverse in many ways -- geographical, intellectual, socioeconomic, as well as racial -- helps us to create the best class we can. We see large educational benefits in shaping a student body at Macalester that reflects the rich and growing racial and cultural diversity of our society. By educating our students on a diverse campus, we are better preparing them as citizens and workers. Denying us the opportunity to exercise our best judgment on these various dimensions is, in our view, both an inappropriate use of federal power and a step backward for American society. -- Michael S. McPherson is president of Macalester College in St. Paul. startribune.com

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (215303)	1/18/2003 12:47:45 PM
From: JHP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Collector swapped arsenal for bail by Franci Richardson Saturday, January 18, 2003 The Worcester man targeted by authorities in connection with a war-worthy arsenal of weapons in an Arizona storage locker Thursday actually told federal investigators about the massive collection himself as part of a deal to get out on bail last month. Scott Segal, 39, was indicted in December on the two felony counts of illegal possession of Israel military Uzi machine guns, but he was released on $10,000 bail on Jan. 2. According to federal court documents, the conditions of the Intel Corp. (Chart) employee's release included a consent form to be signed by his mother, Mariam Ruth Segal, allowing agents to seize ``all firearms, accessory ammunition'' located in lockers in Arizona. Over a 10-hour period Thursday, federal agents pulled from the Mesa locker hundreds of weapons, including flamethrowers, ammunition, high explosives and shoulder-mounted rocket launchers. ``That was the big search in Arizona,'' said Christina Sterling, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan. ``It's an ongoing investigation. ``We sought to detain him, but he was released on conditions,'' she said. Segal's attorney, Michael Wilcox, defended his client to reporters, saying he was aware of the collection but it was not registered in his name. Other conditions of Segal's bail included surrendering his passport and any other firearms, as well as staying away from firearms, alcohol or drugs.