But it isn't faulty.
Its totally faulty.
No......you're reasoning is faulty, not their's.
We could keep that up for months but what would be the point of that.
They did but you don't want to see it.
No Ted, what they did was show something else that they consider connected to that but they did not show it directly.
Look.....color blind policies do no work in this society for one simple reason........this society is not color blind. That's what they were inferring when they discussed this particular myth.
If someone has a poor elementary education, its very likely they will not do well in middle and h.s. school, and probably will not do well on their SATs. Therefore, getting points for being a minority will not save them or give them an advantage
It will give them an advantage. That advantage could be smaller, possibly much smaller then other disadvantages that they might have but it is still an advantage. An advantage is a beneficial factor.
Its too small to make a significant difference if their SAT scores are bad and/or their hi school record is poor. Its only a real advantage when all things are equal. That means your argument that AA allows a poorer quality student into the universities is not true.
You make it seem like the only thing that counts is their racial makeup or gender. The truth is is its a very small part of the total evaluation process.
If you count it at all you are discriminating based on race. If a university gave white students 20 bonus points out of 160 total points, for their skin color, I doubt you, or the NAACP would figure that it was ok because it is only a smalle part of the total evaluation process.
You're right.......the NAACP would object. Most whites already have the advantage.....why should they be given more.
Unfortunately, for conservatives, that small advantage seems to stick in their craw.......why?
Because it is unjust, produces negative results, and is an example of treating people primarily as a member or a race or other group rather then as an individual. I can't understand why power hungry liberals would want to devide people into groups competing for benefits but I can't understand why well intentioned liberals, and I have no reason to consider you anything but well intentioned, would support such a thing.
Because in this particular case, you have to go backwards before you can go forward. You wipe away nearly 250 years of racial history by wishing it away. That history has created an inequity between the white and non white races that can not be erased by simply creating new laws on the books.
I don't know why you refer to liberals as power hungry.....as opposed to what......power hungry conservatives? And I can't answer why they want AA but I can tell you why do. Until all races are generally and truly equal in this country.....in law, in economics, in social behavior, in where they reside etc. then we will continue to have racial discrimination and all the animosity and waste of talent and money that that creates.
I don't understand why conservatives can't see that and get out of their own way.........
And if you were black and team selection was subject to AA that wouldn't change anything......you still wouldn't get on the team. You are not good b-ball material whether you are black or white.
Of course I am further away from being good material for the NBA then students admited under AA are from being highly qualifed students but the difference is one of degree only. AA or not the students with lower grades and test scores, who get in because of bonus points are less qualifed just as I am less qualified to play center for the LA Lakers then Shaq is. And what if I was better at basketball. What if I was a solid college player and was 10 or 15 years younger. What if I had the talent to play in Europe or in American minor leagues (does the CBA still exist?), and almost enough to play in the NBA but not quite. Should the NBA give me a spot anyway because it is 90% black and blacks only make up about 12% of the population? If you believe that people should be propotionatly represented in different schools or places of employment it would seem to me that under those circumstance I should get the job, but it would be wrong to take the job away from someone who is better at basketball then I am, just because he is black and I am white.
If in most industries in this country, black representation was as profound as it is in the NBA, then I would say yes you should get those points.
In this society, however, the NBA is one of the few places where AA is not needed. Long ago, whites forfeited their position in sports essentially because they decided that "they" are naturally more athletic. And the NBA and other sports entities have developed into the very thing you want........an institution with a color blind policy.
They are not necessarily more qualified.........however, the power had been and continues to be mainly in their hands. Therefore, they have an inherent advantage over everyone else.
That's a little vauge. My point was that if whites are more qualified in a particular area then they should get the majority of the spots even as black people get most of the jobs in the NBA and a disproportionate share in the NFL and major league baseball.
Like I said above, long ago, whites forfeited their positioning in sports. Minorities didn't forfeit their positions in other industries because they never had a position to forfeit.
Whites are not more powerful. Specific people are more powerful. Many of those people are white but being white doesn't give you power or special advantage.
Yes, it does, because white males are the entrenched power elite.
There are powerful rich whites and and poor or powerless whites, the same goes for blacks or people of any other ethnic group. I don't gain a big advantage just because the richest person in the US, and the president of the US are both white.
It doesn't seem that way to you but it does in practice make a difference. When you were a kid, you knew that it was possible you could grow up to be president. A Latino kid doesn't know if that future is possible for him.
Racism is when the power resides in one group's hand and that group refuses to share in that power or to allow non members to even participate.
White people are not a group. Something that helps some other white person doesn't help me or hurt black people in general. White people, black people, whatever, we are all individuals.
You say that as if it were true but it isn't.
The bar was lowered for GW and that didn't bring Yale down
Do you know this for a fact, or are you just giving him a gratuitious slap? In any case I've allready said I am willing to do away with bonuses for children of alumni (but I think it would be wrong to actually force private institutions to get rid of them through the force of law, but protest and lobbying would be fine).
I don't know for a fact what GW's SAT's were....during the campaign it was reported they were in the 500's, clearly not good enough for Yale but then, I heard there was a disclaimer. Therefore, I am basing my comments on my experience of the man since he's became president and I don't believe he was smart enough to get into Yale on his academics. And it wasn't a slam......I don't think Bush is stupid, just not smart enough for a Yalie. Both his father and Jeb strike me as being much brighter.
AA is the teeth of Civil Rts. laws and was spawned by those laws.
They had teeth even without AA in many cases. Also some of the laws would seem to directly outlaw AA. Others where passed with the understanding of those who voted for them that they would not cause AA. For that matter not all the spawn of good things are themselves good.
How can you say that? The GOP fought implementation of the 1964 Civil Rts Act well into the '80's.....especially in the southern states. I understand even Reagan tried to sabotage the Act because he and other primo GOP leaders were fearful that blacks would vote for Dems and not Reps, and that Dems would have an edge. It took court case after court case to get the law implemented.
What reason?
I didn't say they where. I laid out all the posibilities together. Either they are for other reasons, or your earlier statement about AA is untrue.
But other reasons are, affirmitive action laws that don't include AA,
Look at this statement you made...."AA laws that don't include AA". That's exactly right.....without AA laws, there is no AA. And AA is what this country needs.
the work of black people to better themselves and the work of all people to combat discrimination. For that matter there would be many indirect factors that would help determine the absolute or realtive wealth and power of different races.
Slowly, that's happening under AA.
Well, let me tell you, the "catch up" process has just begun.
No it began in the 1800s.
What? When they freed the slaves.......even you can't believe that.
Not at all. It is hireing people you know or like, or who are known or liked by people you like.
AKA racism.......
No Ted. If I hire a friend and both of us are white that is not racism, even if I hired him because he was a friend rather then because of objective criteria.
But it was based on race..
You just explained the need for AA. As a business owner, you would want to hire someone you liked and felt comfortable with.....a friend. And since the races tend to stick together even at this late date, that friend would mostly likely be white......a minority would not stand a chance.
Associations like you describe above often figure you into hiring practices.
ted |
