To: tejek who wrote (176330 ) 10/20/2003 3:55:31 PM From: TimF Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578997 I guess you're assuming that C. Powell's will not experience discrimination because they are C. Powell's children. Then your guess would be incorrect. What I said was that their ancestors where not slaves in the US, and that they where not disadvantaged. I didn't say they have never faced unfair negative discrimination, but despite that discrimination they had a lot more advantaged then the average person in the US. I don't have any problem with the fact that they had these advantages but I don't see why we should deliberately create more esp at the expense of creating an equivalent disadvantage for someone else. No one can be sure of that given the nature of the American mindsight; hence, they're entitled to any benefits they can derive from AA. So because it can't be proved that they have not faced unfair discrimination against their interests they are entitled to unfair discrimination in their favor?!? "Should a poor Asian immigrant be penalized for what a white southerner did in 1845?" Yes. Why?" Sorry misread the question. My answer is no But that is effectively what happens when the Asian immigrant or his kids apply to many universities. Why should the question come up? AA covers both minorities. They would each get equal consideration as well any white candidates for the job. AA by definition isn't giving equal consideration, its giving some groups special consideration or bonuses. Also AA often acts against rather then for Asians. AA is not preferential treatment "?!?!? I can't believe you actually said that." In most instances, AA is a policy of enforced inclusion, making sure that minorities are considered for jobs. With gov't contracts, there are credits given if the contractor is a minority or a woman. In other words it is preferential treatment for minorities or women. Of course, that's when a white contractor applies to get gov't work in the first place. Most gov't work is bid on my minorities and women only. White male dominated firms do not want to go through the bureaucratic hassles that come with working with the gov't. Esp. because they face a disadvantage due to AA. Rarely, have I seen a white firm or a white male get screwed by AA. The conservatives in this country are making a mountain out of a molehill. You see it but you don't notice it. You yourself said many white males don't even try for certain types of federal contracts. Also at some schools the same test levels that would exclude white people from consideration are enough to almost ensure that a black person will be accepted. All I can add is that if you fukk with AA before its goals have been reached, we will pay for that stupidity just like segregationist folk in the 60s paid for their resistance to integration with the riots in our cities. AA is itself close to the policies of the segregationists then remove AA would be. I doubt its goals will ever be achieved because there will always be statistical disparities in one area or another and because of the way special interest politics work and because AA doesn't even attempt to deal with things like poor education in inner city schools and others things that put minorities at a disadvantage far bigger then any disadvantage racism is currently causing them . There is no good goal that AA can reach. I doubt what you say about riots is true but even if it is true avoiding riots isn't worth dealing with the injustice and practical difficulties caused by AA. I don't really have much more to say on the subject except that the pie is big enough for all of us. Which is not a good argument for giving some people bonuses over others when you decide what slice pie should be given out, esp when the effort makes the overall size of the pie slightly smaller. Tim