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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hueyone who wrote (151591)	1/18/2003 6:43:49 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

The white woman that filed the law suit against University of Michigan was held out of law school because her position was given to a less qualified candidate solely because of the other candidate's skin color. First a nitpick: She didn't have marks good enough to get in, regardless of the quotas. This was established earlier in the trial. However, it is true that somebody else who was white didn't get in because room was made for a black. Now, whenever a North Dakotan gets money for flood damage that money is taken away from a qualified New Yorker who could have benefited from paying less taxes... So the mere fact that one person benefited to the detriment of another is not proof enough of racism. To make some sort of parallel, the New Yorkers would have had to suffer flood damage as well, and somehow be discriminated against by the federal government as far as receiving federal flood damage relief. Those places in the University of Michigan were reserved for people who had suffered from discrimination. Did the woman from Michigan suffered from discrimination? No. Hence she doesn't qualify for that special help. In other words, the woman is a New Yorker who did not have flood damage complaining about help for a North Dakotan who had flood damage. Think about it... This