124 new of 217 responses total.
re #92 (tsty): Wow, what an overwhelming argument! I'm floored, positively floored! Yup, the liberal philosophy basically comes down to (1) worshiping a different God, (2) making graven images of God, (3) taking the name of God in vain, (4) not keeping the sabbath, (5) not honoring their mothers or fathers, (5) murder, (6) adultry, (7) theft, (8) bearing false witness against neighbors, (9) coveting neighbors wives, and (10) coveting neighbors goods. That's pretty much the liberal party platform right there, as proven by the fact that I can name at least one liberal that has performed each of those actions. This clearly proves that it is impossible for a liberal to be a Christian, thus wiping millions of liberal Christians out of existance. Oh wait, you must mean the other ten commandments, the ones where God actually reveals his political views: (1) Thou shalt not tax the rich, (2) Thou shalt not disarm the citizenry, (3) Thou shalt not permit gays to marry, (4) Thou shalt not deprive churches of public funding, (5) Thou shalt not commit abortion, (6) Thou shalt not protect the environment, (7) Thou shalt not suffer Saddam Hussein to live, (8) Thou shalt not publically fund welfare or the arts, (9) Thou shalt not allow labor unions to engage in political action, (10) Thou shalt not interfere with corporate profits. Yup, those are right there in my Bible on page mumblty-mumble. So which is it? Do you know nothing about Christianity, or nothing about Liberalism?
"Love thine enemy", anyone? "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you"? "Blessed are the peacemakers"? No usury? Run that by me aain?
re: "#93 (gull): Re #84: What about Henry Ford? Definately an American, but he wrote fan letters to Adolf Hitler and published an anti-Semitic newspaper. He got a fair amount of support from other Americans on that issue." I don't know what you call "fair amount," but from what I've read his newspaper was pretty much a failure, along with the rest of his campaign. Which proves my point. and: "how much effort should we really go to for people who won't vote for us anyway?" Exactly. This is why the Democrats take them from granted. Our process is base upon change from the inside. Why is it required to "reach out?" Shouldn't blacks realize they're getting screwed by the current social security system because they have shorter life span than other groups so, as a result, they collect less and end up subsidizing? You'd think they'd back private accounts. We are seeing a lot of blacks bucking their "leadership" on the school voucher issue, however. So perhaps things are changing. and "Re #88: So you're saying, basically, "We'll never solve the problem completely, so we should give up on trying to improve the situation"?" No. I am saying that at some point marginal returns diminish. Move to another area where the gains may be greater for the effort put forth. and "Re #91: what bothers me most about articles like that is the pandering nature of them" Maybe he's trying to "reach out." janc: Mind telling me what bookstore you got that bible at? ;)
Re #96: I'd guess that a shorter average lifespan for blacks probably comes from a higher infant mortality rate. If that's true, then there's no reason to assume someone who lives past being an infant won't live long enough to collect as much as a white person would. (This is something that's often misunderstood about "average lifespan" figures. For example, many third-world countries have average lifespans down in the 30s, but you'll find plenty of people there older than 30 years. The reason is there's high infant mortality, and all those people who live 0 years pull down the average.) I suspect many blacks oppose private social security accounts for the same reason I do -- they've paid attention to what the stock market has been doing lately, and noticed that it's a game where insiders hold all the cards. It's bad enough that I'm risking my 401(k) money at that casino; I don't want my safety net to be counting on it too.
The findings of a study conducted in Michigan do not support your "guess." If a black man can make it to age 75, he will probably outlive a white of the same age, but less than age 75, whites have longer expected lifespans. http://www.msue.msu.edu/msue/imp/modfl/51596001.html Also, your comments indicate you are not familiar with the private account concept that is currently being proposed.
Re #93: Bumper sticker: "Listen to Rush Limbaugh? No thanks, my parents weren't related." (Gotta love Instant Attitudes.)
I don't really think there's such a thing as a liberal Christian.
Now, a Christian Liberal, that's another thing entirely.
In other worlds, the ten commandments still apply. But you're
supposed to practice them in your life towards everyone you meet,
rather than in the hours in church during service.
As for the second ten, I can think of a response to couple. GOd
created this planet for us, so it behooves us to treat it with
respect, and honor his gift. I suppose if you can tolerate a quote
from the new testamanet, I'll offer one.
So as you do unto the least of them, you do unto me.
I think that covers some serious terrritory. ( I also think I
either heat the basement, or shiver in short sleeves while typing.
I've managed to end my entries several times by inadvertently hitting
the keybopard with my windbreaker sleeves)
Sure there's such a thing as a liberal Christian - but when you put
"liberal" before "Christian", it changes the meaning to someone whose views
on religion aren't in line with the Christian orthodoxy. I suppose a gnostic
or Arianist (not Aryanist) Christian, or someone who didn't believe in the
sacraments, would qualify.
This response has been erased.
Re: 91 - "But the black civil liberties movement found by far it's strongest support in the Democratic party." This is a persistent myth. The 1957 Civil Rights Act was pushed by Eisenhower, a Republican, and voted against by Senator Kennedy, and filibustered for 24 hours by another Democrat senator. Senator Johnson, a Democrat, stripped out enforcement provisions from it rendering it meaningless. In 1960, another civil rights act was introduced, and again Democrats kept enforcement measures out of it. In 1964, only 69% of Democrats in the Senate (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act, as opposed to 82% of Republicans. All of the southern Democratic Senators, including former KKK leader Robert Byrd and Al Gore, Sr, voted against it, and the primary opposition to the Act took the form of a 74-day filibuster by the Democrats. In the House, 61% of Democrats voted for it, and 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it, while 80% of Republicans voted for it. "At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their 'overwhelming' support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his 'remarkable civil rights leadership.' Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that 'The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South' (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that 'these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement.'"
During the era you're talking about, the Democratic party had a split personality -- liberal and pro-civil-rights in the north, conservative and segregationist in the south. The filibustering Senate Democrats were southerners. The Republican party was almost non-existent in the south. I have a suspicion that those Blacks in the south who were *allowed* to vote, voted Republican in local elections to a large extent, at least when any Republicans bothered to run. But those days are long gone. In the 60s the Republicans adopted the infamous "Southern Strategy" -- playing to the fears of the conservative White electorate -- to wrest control of the South from the Democrats. And they succeeded. The Republicans are now the party of entrenched reactionary fundamentalism down there. It's no wonder Blacks vote for the Democrats these days.
Lots of the former "Southern Democrats" are now Republicans, too.
It has been claimed that the "conversion" of the South to Republicanism came about because of the civil rights successes. That is a sad commentary on the Southern society, but I suppose it was an inevitable consequence of finally trying to be what our Declaration of Independence claimed.
"Reagan Democrats" were primarily of Irish descent.
And the biggest center of "Reagan Democrats" was in Macomb County (a county which is only 2% black, and right across 8 Mile Road from Detroit). My I hope overly cynical explanation of that is that the people in Macomb County were quite happy to be good union members and vote Democratic, as long as it didn't mean living near black people.
Re #106: Indeed.
re ersp:109: That's pretty cynical, so I guess I'd hope it's over- cynical, too. I don't recall racism being a big issue in that election. I recall it as being focused on the hostage situation in Iran, the aftermath of Watergate, and the dismal malaise of Jimmy Carter versus the cheery optimism and hope of Ronald Reagan.
(I'm too impatient to wade through this partisan claptrap. did the Whittier College Republicans ever report on their event, or was the declaration more important than the action?)
I did some web searching, and couldn't find any hint of the outcome (or announcement) of this event. I can't even confirm the existance of anything called "Whittier College Republicans". The Whittier "Richard M. Nixon Republican Club" seems to exist, but has essentially no web presence. However, at http://www.shethinks.org/articles/an00181.cfm I found a description of an affirmative action bake sale at the University of New Mexico. This talks a bit about the results (tepid) and suggests that other college republican groups try the same thing. Possibly someone at Whittier College did a copy cat.
From a Jewish World Review article: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/leo.html -- A Harvard University Press book exploring a fairly narrow question-why aren't there more black and Hispanic professors?-is about to take center stage in the affirmative action debate. The book, "Increasing Faculty Diversity: The Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students," reports that roughly 10 percent of high-achieving black and Hispanic college seniors want to become professors-about the same percentage as whites. But only a small pool of non-Asian minorities earn grades good enough to get them into graduate school. And the study finds that affirmative action is making things worse: It steers minority students to selective colleges where they are underqualified and likely to get lower grades. The low marks make them less likely to attend graduate school. They also erode students' confidence, often convincing them that they aren't suited for academic careers. ===see link for rest of article===
Affirmative action alone does no such thing. The students are free to choose which schools they attend. This is a specious argument which essentially tries to deny students their freedom to make their own choices among opportunities.
The argument boils down to, "black people aren't capable of making good decisions on their own, so we should limit their options for their own good."
Though it's very politically correct to do so, following from the
completely reasonable assumption that there are no racial differences in
intelligence or academic ability, to saying that students of all races will
perform equally in any given environment is a bit of a stretch. The argument
presented in #114 is reasonable; if a student is admitted to a college where
they do not do as well, it is entirely plausible that they recieve less
benefit from it than if they went to a less prestigious school and did better.
The argument made in the article linked to in resp:114 is similar to one I've made many times here. I consider the argument plausible, and think it is one that needs to be considered seriously, but I have never seen anyone pull together sufficient evidence to prove it. If convincing evidence for this exists, then my "solution" would not be to eliminate affirmative action admissions. It'd be to provide the information to students who are being given a prefered admission. Tell them that they have been accepted, but that their GPA/SAT scores are significantly below those of most students at the institution, and that students admitted with such scores tend to have higher drop-out rates and lower grades. To succeed, they will probably have to work harder than most other students on campus, studying while other students are partying. Are you substantially more motivated, more willing to work, than other students you know who are as smart as you? Are you prepared to sustain this level of work for four years, while seeing others around you succeed with less effort? If you are prepared for that challenge, then we welcome you. If not, you may want to consider the alternative of attending a college where you can be accepted without preferment, where you will be on a level field with other students. My point is that for some students a preferment is a real boon. It depends on how big the preferment is, but mostly it depends on the student. For bright-but-lazy types (like me), or for easily discouraged types, it isn't. Either way, the student should know what they are getting into. They should take some time to contemplate the pluses and minuses, not just grab for the most prestigious school that accepts them.
Re #116: Engage brain BEFORE starting fingers. Don't you realize that your argument applies just as well to ANY student, not just minorities? Standards are not just for discrimination; they have an essential purpose. Why not let illiterates into the English program at Michigan, or innumerates into engineering at MIT? Because they have no chance, and it wastes the institution's resources.
re: "#116 (gull): The argument boils down to, 'black people aren't capable of making good decisions on their own,'" Are they now making the decisions "on their own?" Or are they being pushed, pulled, and steered by the colleges, their high schools, the civil rights establishment, their families, and who know who else to go to the prestigious school because they deserve it on account of the rotten treatment their people received, not because it is the best choice for that individual? It is a lot of pressure to put on a 17 year old.
Let me make haste to be the first to respond to resp:120: *Life* is a lot of pressure to put on a 17 year old. Everyone has to live under pressure much of the time.
re resp:118: Maybe all applicants should be shown a chart showing where they are on the admissions criteria, so they can decide how they'll do at a particular school. Of course it'll never happen, as specific admissions criteria are a closely guarded secret at every competitive university. If the full criteria got out, the schools might face lawsuits.
O.k. So add what I said to the pressure of "life" in general.
If you were accepted to, say, the University of Michigan, and Wayne State
Univiersity, which would you go to? Although Wayne State is a fine and
well-respected institution, nearly everyone would consider the University of
Michigan the obvious choice. Choose the other way, and you'll have to defend
yourself to everyone you meet. Your parents will likely go ballistic.
Whatever your race, everyone is under pressure to go to the "best" college
they can get into. I don't think the "civil rights establishment" is pushing
black students especially. No push is required to convince people to grab
short glory ("I'm going to the University of Michigan!"). This force is so
strong, that my suggestion of informing students about what they are getting
into is probably dumb. Hardly anyone is going to pass up the prestigious
school, and the ones who do will likely always regret it.
I think that is an overstatement. I know and have heard of students that have chosen Wayne State of U Mich because Wayne offers more of what they want. If my daughter had done so, I would have had no problem with it, so long as the choice was rational. As it is, she did not even *apply* to UM, because it did not offer what she sought at the time (pre-vet program). Obvously, we did not go ballistic. Or was your response meant to be a parody of Politically Correct thinking?
Rane, I think if you consider Jan's response in a reasonable manner, you'll get closer to understanding the point he made. Obviously if you want to go to vet school and Michigan doesn't have one, you wouldn't go to Michigan. You probably wouldn't apply, like your daughter, putting you outside the rules. No one is accepted who doesn't apply. If you want to go into medicine, though, and both Wayne State and Michigan have med schools, and you've applied and been accepted at both, chances are pretty good you're going to Michigan instead of Wayne State. Not everyone will. There are plenty of reasons why some wouldn't, such as location (maybe you want to stay in Detroit), cost (U-M is more expensive), parents might have gone to Wayne State, friends might be going there, you don't like trees, etc. But most, given the choice, are going to pick Michigan.
If it is true that if too many of the beneficiaries of affirmative action are choosing to attend schools for which they are underqualified, I'd think that the situation would tend to correct itself over time as people learn about the mistakes of others and get smarter about the choices they make. So even if it's true, I don't see it as an argument against affirmative action.
No, it's not. The argument against affim. action is that it amounts to racial discrimination and, as such, it unconstitutional. What the "choosing the wrong school" argument does is to highlight a corrolary - why affirmative action is harmful to the very people who it is supposed to help.
That's for them to decide, not you. You should butt out of other people's choices. I don't mind affirmative action being a form of racial discrimination that subtracts in a small way from the huge amount of racial discrimination being practiced that keeps minorities oppressed. Why aren't you doing something about that, klg, since it is a much larger problem and even specifically unconstitutional? You solve the primary discrimination problem, and the compensating discrimination will disappear. Why spend so much time and effort attacking a program that is trying to lessen the effect of the overwhelming problem of discrimination. You seem to turn a blind eye to that.
I also agree that the "wrong school" business is not an argument against affirmative action. It only says that we offer some students a very tempting opportunity to fail. Not exactly discrimination. It's also very specific to college admissions. Similar arguments don't necessarily apply to other arenas. I thought affirmative action worked very well in hiring faculty. This was because (1) there was a glut of people seeking very few jobs, so we might have had to pass up someone who was stupifyingly overqualified to choose someone who was merely amazingly overqualified, and (2) because there are so many different success modes for a faculty member (succeed as a researcher, succeed as a fund raiser, succeed as a teacher, succeed as an administrator, etc.) The "reverse discrimination" argument is a valid objection to affirmative action in general. But it's also the whole point. We try to counter-act discrimination with reverse discriminaton, balancing things out. This is why the courts have upheld it in the past. To make the "reverse discrimination" argument stand, you need to demonstrate that the reverse discrimination is substantially in excess of the discrimination it is supposed to be balancing. Not an easy case to prove.
Perhaps I have been suffering under the undue assumption that "racial discrimination," according to the laws of this great land, is illegal. If it is not (and the very organization that I believed was supposed to be enforcing that illegality has been practicing it), then I retract everything I have written. Unless, perhaps it is, indeed, illegal, only some of you have been given the authority to determine that breaking the law is o.k. (In which case, then, why do we call this a country of laws, not of men??) (Pardon me, but I find your reasoning very strange. Mr. Copi were he around, would be having fits.)
Had to punt, eh?
Re #131: the answer is simply that affirmative action is not racial discrimination. No direct action it taken to discriminte against anyone. What occurs is a slight positive shift in the opportunities made available to a discriminated against minority. Anyone that I think you might claim is being discriminated against, isn't, as they retain the same freedoms of the Bill of Rights as ever. Which of them is denied jobs and housing, or voting rights, as the resuilt of affirmative action? You haven't told us yet what you are doing to decrease the current discrimination against racial minorities. I'm sure you have just overlooked doing so, but we are patient.
1) You can discriminate against someone or you can discriminate in their
favor -- there is nothing inherent of the definition of "discriminate"
that requires it to be negative.
2) Other than by retracting what he said and claiming he never said it,
I can't imagine how Rane intends to justify his statement that
"affirmative action is not racial discrimination." It is clearly
discrimination - differentiating between candidates based on a
particular attribute - and that attribute happens to be racial.
In my book that means it's pretty fair to call it racial discrimination.
3) I think the problem Rane's having with his argument is that he's too
scared to go on record as saying that there can be good forms of racial
discrimination and bad forms of racial discrimination. His position
on affirmative action, which he favors, doesn't reconcile neatly with
his position on racial discrimination, which he disapproves of, so
apparently he's decided to avoid the resulting cognitive dissonance
by just refusing to admit to himself or others that affirmative action
is, in fact, a form of racial discrimination.
4) Klg seems to be having fun making Rane squirm, but he's fixated on the
wrong question. The dominant issue is not whether affirmative action
is a form or racial discrimination but whether it is a legally
permissible form of racial discrimination. If the answer were clearly
an automatic "No", as klg prefers to believe, I suspect the courts would
have settled the issue a long time ago..
Which one is it, rcurl, quote 1 or quote 2?: 1. "#129 (rcurl) Feb 4: I don't mind affirmative action being a form of racial discrimination." 2. "#133 (rcurl) Feb 4: affirmative action is not racial discrimination." (At least wait a day to hold 2 conflicting opinions o.k.?) re: "#132 (scott): Had to punt, eh?" In the face of such iron-clad reasoning I'm about ready to go back to the lockerroom and undress. re: "#133 (rcurl): they retain the same freedoms of the Bill of Rights as ever. Which of them is denied jobs and housing, or voting rights, as the resuilt of affirmative action?" Hey, "separate but equal" rides again! (When do the signs go up on the drinking fountains?) re: "#133 (rcurl): You haven't told us yet what you are doing to decrease the current discrimination against racial minorities." I'd start by enforcing laws as they are written. re: "#134 (mcnally): The dominant issue is not whether affirmative actionis a form or racial discrimination but whether it is a legally permissible form of racial discrimination." I'd be obliged if you would show any currently standing law or court opinion in the U.S. that sanctions "racial discrimination" in so many words.
> I'd be obliged if you would show any currently standing law or court > opinion in the U.S. that sanctions "racial discrimination" in so many > words. I'll leave that up to someone who has nothing better to do than dig for research material you could easily be finding yourself. The numerous federal, state, and local laws which provide for hiring and contracting preferences for minorities and minority-owned businesses should be ample demonstration that some race-based laws are currently in effect and presently considered good law in most jurisdictions in the country.
If you are unwilling to substantiate your own arguments, don't put the burden upon me to do so.
re resp:137: "the answer is simply that affirmative action is not racial discrimination. No direct action it taken to discriminte against anyone." I find that a completely flabbergasting statement. Do you not understand that, when you choose to give one person an advantage in a competitive situation, you take away something from another person? You can't just move a person higher on a list without any other effects. When you move one name from position 10 to position 5, then the previous 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 will then become 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The first gains position, and the others lose position. The act of moving one person higher on the list does indeed directly move the others down on the list. There's no way around that. There's no way you can have affirmative action without also having adverse discrimination on some of the others who do not receive affirmative action.
Those opposed to affirmative action have fixated on that argument, that aid to one group is deprivation of another. That, of course, completely contradicts ALL the social work of all the churches and other agencies in the country. There is no way you can have, for example, faith-based social work in poor communities without depriving other groups of equal funds. The argument is a "red herring". I agree that I have used the term "racial discrimination" in two senses. I think it would be a good idea to restrict it to its classic meaning, that being *depriving* individuals of civil rights based on their race. *Giving* people benefits on the basis of their race is not the same thing, since others still retain their civil rights, and such social work has been generally approved. Even the right-wing approves it in the form of "faith based" initiatives, which will benefit primarily discriminated-against minorities (except that it is unconstitutional because of its federal support of religous purposes).
Just tell me which drinking fountain I am allowed to use, please, (they both dispense water) or whether I should sit in the front of the bus or in back (I still get to my destination). I guess it's true that some animals are just more equal than others, George. Amendment XIV of the US Constitution Section 1. . . No state shall . . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws. Where is the law banning churches and private agencies from discriminating in the work they do?
Re #140: Funny you should use these analogies. There's some evidence that a plan much like the one Bush suggests, in California, is resulting in the segregation of the university system there.
You prove my point in #140, klg. What churches do for the poor is not "racial discrimination", but it would be if they were not equal opportunity employers on federal funds.
Of course, what is done with government funds is held to a different standard. No argument here on that. However, the government, in any case, must abide by equal protection - which the Supreme Court said cannot mean separate but equal. re: "#141 (gull): There's some evidence that a plan much like the one Bush suggests, in California, is resulting in the segregation of the university system there." From what I have heard, this is not correct. While minority admissions to UCB may decline, for the system as a whole they have not.
re resp:139: Rane, you're not responding to anyone's points. You said my position is: "Aid to one group is deprivation to another." Nonsense! I've not said that, neither has anyone else in this item, except you. No one could possibly believe it. The argument is indeed a red herring. Here's what I really said: *Preference* for one group deprives another. Aid to one group *to give it advantages over another group* does indeed deprive the other group. This really is a typical argument used by people who don't much like affirmative action. No one has a very good answer for it, so it makes a pretty good argument.
So, aid preferences by churches to give to the poor deprives others? It deprives the donors, obvously. It also deprives those not included in the gifting.
Re #143: Black admissions are being concentrated in fewer colleges. Eventually that could result in colleges that are majority black and colleges that are majority white, basically re-segregating the colleges there.
It is possible that some people of each color prefer it that way, to be in the majority rather than the minority. Several black neighbors expected me to have heard of a famous black college (Howard University).
Re #134.1: In a zero-sum game like an admitted pool of students of a certain size, discriminating for someone necessarily creates some measure of discrimination against everyone not so favored. The question is what factors are legitimate when making decisions. I find it very amusing that klg has rcurl on the run this time. Where he grasps the principles involved, he's mastered the material.
I don't feel on the run at all. In fact, I observe that klg is on the run. I did back away from the idea that "racial discrimination" is both negative and positive: I believe it refers only to deprivation of civil liberties on the basis of color. Perhaps my changing my mind on that is what you mean. I put that idea forward orginally with the intention of finding a middle ground for the discussion, but klg immediately used it as a semantic weapon. Affirmative action creates no "racial discrimination". No ones civil liberties, as defined in the first ten amendments and related laws, are abridged by affirmative action.
Re #147: Yes, they often do. That's why, for example, Detroit suburbs have mostly self-segregated. I'm not sure that's necessarily good for society, though.
re: "#146 (gull): Re #143: Black admissions are being concentrated in
fewer colleges. Eventually that could result in colleges that are
majority black and colleges that are majority white, basically re-
segregating the colleges there."
This is somewhat different than your original contention. ("Is
resulting" vs. "could result") And how many "fewer" do you mean? You
stated that there is "some evidence" available. Would you care to
share it? (Are you concerned that spreading blacks among a larger
number of colleges means there may not be a "critical mass"?)
re: "#149 (rcurl): No ones civil liberties, as defined in the first
ten amendments and related laws, are abridged by affirmative action."
Legally, is the standing of the 10 amendments compared to the body of
the constitution and the other amendments (e.g., the 14th) different?
If the government developed special school (with equal funding)
especially for blacks so they could emphasize the study of certain
concepts, would that be a deprivation of civil liberties?
From past experiences, it became obvious that the *consequences* of "separate but equal" ideas were undesirable, in particular because no "separate but equal" schools were ever created.
I was under the impression that the Supreme Court ruling stated that "separate by equal" was by definition unconstitutional - regardless of how it might work in practice. Am I mistaken? Are you agreeing that the Bill of Rights has no greater authority than the remainder of the Constitution, as amended?
Nope.
Shucks!
Democrats riled by race and gender-biased bake sale http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=22913 ================= An affirmative action bake sale organized by the Bruin Republicans last week has provoked impassioned responses from a top California Democrat and political student groups on campus. The sale, held on Bruin Walk on Feb. 3, offered cookies at different prices depending on the customer's race and gender. Black, Latina and American Indian females were charged 25 cents for cookies that cost males of minority descent 50 cents. White females were charged $1, and white males and all Asian Americans were charged $2. Students selling the cookies were assigned name tags portraying them as "Uncle Tom," "The White Oppressor" and "Self-Hating Hispanic Race Traitor." Chairman of the California Democratic Party Art Torres voiced his disapproval in a Monday press release. "I am deeply saddened and disheartened at the activities of the Bruin Republicans," he said. Torres, a former California state senator, believes UCLA Republicans have been "emboldened" by the recent race-sensitive remarks by various Republican leaders, specifically citing Trent Lott's, R-Miss., comments and Congressman Howard Coble's, R-N.C., praise of internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II. "It is a shame that Republicans at UCLA have chosen to mimic the extreme views of their Republican leaders," Torres said. Andrew Jones, president of the Bruin Republicans and a former Daily Bruin Viewpoint columnist, resents the chairman's association of his student group with national Republican controversies. "This is just Torres being a bully. He doesn't know us. We have never stood behind Trent Lott," Jones said. The intent of the sale, Jones said, was to "bring the issue (of affirmative action) down to everyday terms. We wanted to show how affirmative action is racial division, not racial reconciliation." As for the name tags of the vendors, Jones said many people would look at a black or Latino student taking part in a Bruin Republicans anti-affirmative action sale and either think to themselves or say out loud that the student is a traitor to his race. Therefore, the Bruin Republicans decided to "turn it on its head" and use the names themselves, before passers-by had a chance. Jones asserted his objective was to incite discourse on the issue, not to provoke anger. "We want people to have an opinion, one way or another," he added. Though the Bruin Democrats did not protest the event or respond to it publicly, president Kristina Meshelski, a former Daily Bruin contributor, felt the sale served to confuse students. "They're focusing only on how it can hurt. A diverse student body is something we should strive for, and affirmative action can help," she said. Kevin Acebo, a press aide for Torres, called the bake sale a clear example of "race-bating." Juan Carlos-Orellana, president of the Democratic Law Students Association, responded to the event with similar indignation, referring to the bake sale as an "insulting trivialization of the serious issue of race and gender equality." Orellana sees the effort by the Bruin Republicans as detrimental to the discussion of affirmative action. "By reducing the complexity of this issue into dollars and cents and cookies they are working to stop discourse," he said. ===========================
(that's nice, Mikey. what about the Whittiers?)
Haven't seen any news reports on it. And thats MR. Mikey to you, bub.
(sorry, Mr. Mikey.)
http://www.michiganreview.com/
Affirmative Action Bake Sale Hits UM Campus
By James Justin Wilson
Posted on Monday, February 17, 2003 @ 5:50:54 pm
***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
CONTACT:
James Wilson
Editor-in-Chief, The Michigan Review
(734) 644-7049
mrev@umich.edu
www.michiganreview.com
Affirmative Action Bake Sale Hits UM Campus
Ann Arbor, MI 2/17/03
Today, as University of Michigan President Mary Sue Colman
addressed the American Council on Education to defend the University's
admissions policies, the staff of The Michigan Review held an affirmative
action bake sale to illustrate the injustice inheret in the University's
policies. This sale featured muffins and bagels priced at $1.00 for white
students (including Asians and Middle Easterners) and $0.80 for
underrepresented minorities (including African-Americans, Hispanics
and Native Americans). The prices reflected the admissions point system
used by the University.
....<xnip>..... (read the rest at url above)
-----AND----
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/02/18/3e51d27e2b3e2
Race-conscious bake sale stirs controversy
By Elizabeth Anderson, Daily Staff Reporter
February 18, 2003
In an attempt to make the University's
race-conscious admissions policies more tangible to
students, staff members of The Michigan Review
held an "Affirmative Action Bake Sale" yesterday.
The purpose of the bake sale was to exemplify the
University's 150 point-based system admissions
process in another setting, Michigan Review Editor
in Chief James and LSA senior Justin Wilson said.
The University awards 20 out of a possible 150
points to underrepresented minority students.
...<xnip>..... (read teh rest at url above)
Right - they should have set the price inversely proportional to each boyer's GPA. Say, $1 if the person has the miniomum 2.0, $0.50 if they have a 3.0, and just two-bits if they have a 4.0. That would better represent the current admission system, which is primarily merit based.
Actually, the price should be the same for all UM students, since they all got into the UM...
Sorry, I should have shown the sarcasm flag for #161.
Too bad they missed the Martin Luther King day sale. The same price for everybody.
A nice counterprogramming idea would be to set up a "bagel loans" table right next to the bake sale table. Whites are cheerfully loaned a dollar for bagel purchases, while minorities are brushed off with a bogus reason.
(Because they knead the dough?)
Did they remember to offer lower prices for U.P. residents and legacies, too, or did they gloss over that in favor of pretending only race matters in the admissions process?
Don't forget that the Provost can give people twice the racial minority discount at will. "Hey, dude, the Provost said I can have these for 50 cents!"
having the provost (or college presidents - aside from university president) issue points for preferential admission treatment is THE method that permits *individualised* bias based on *individual* inspection of the *person*. blanket dna preference is racism, pure and simple.
(Actually, the Provost can give the same amount. My bad.)
does anyone know how many ppl receive provost-points in any given entry class of ~5000 / ~350 ? does provost issue fewer than 20 or only the whole thing?
Who cares?
well, me , for one.
Why?
well, first of all, to see how much individual attentin is being paid to individual appllicants by a powerful individual. also to compare the numbers versus the total applicant base. not who, not you, just general numbers.
Affirmative Action Car Financing Does anybody know the details on a lawsuit that is supposedly resulting in reduced-rate loans on car purchases financed through Nissan, as long as you happen to be correctly pigmented?
No, but there was a recent lawsuit against (I think) GM dealers for refusing to finance people who didn't happen to be light-skinned.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Nissan's financing arm has agreed to stop marking up loan rates offered to qualified minority buyers under a proposed settlement of a class-action federal discrimination lawsuit. The agreement, filed this week, seeks to settle a 1998 lawsuit by black and Hispanic car buyers from Tennessee and Florida who said Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. charged them higher interest rates on car loans than whites with similar credit ratings. Under the settlement, NMAC agreed to institute a credit pre-approval program offering "no markup" rates to black and Hispanic buyers who have never declared bankruptcy or had cars repossessed. The company said it will make 675,000 such offers over five years. The "markup" is a percentage in addition to the minimum percentage rate at which NMAC approves credit. It usually is split between the dealer and NMAC. Studies prepared for the plaintiffs by researchers from Yale and Vanderbilt showed that rates for minorities could be 30 percent to 50 percent higher than what whites paid.
Boy, it sounds like those "correctly pigmented" minorities get *all* the breaks. Chalk up another astute call for vigilant egalitarian klg.
The usual standard of accuracy we expect from klg.
Au contraire, mon ami. It looks like I was entirely correctomundo. An affirmative action program - benefiting not those who were discriminated against, but those who happen to fit the racial profile. It's a private company, though, so if it WANTS to do it, who am I to say it's wrong? Unless, there was an "element" of coercion involved. Ya think there was?? Nah!! By the way, is there any information as to how "black and Hispanic" buyers are defined? What's the threshhold of being "black?" Is there a "blood test" or something?
Did I read the article wrong? I read it that they'd been adding a markup to minority loans, and that they were going to stop adding that markup.
Yes. They have been adding a markup, and they will continue to add a markup - only to whites.
jmsaul 2, klg 0.
Re #183: I don't see that in the article. Maybe you could provide another report that supports your interpretation?
With pleasure: http://www.oakridger.com/stories/102400/stt_1024000011.html "Nissan, GM Deny Discrimination in Loan Financing "NASHVILLE (AP) -- Companies that administer auto loans for Nissan and General Motors on Monday denied allegations in two class-action lawsuits that black car shoppers are charged higher rates than white shoppers. "Officials with Nissan Motors Acceptance Corp. and General Motors Acceptance Corp. said both companies have zero-tolerance policies against discrimination. They said the lenders are never informed of the customer's race when a loan application is submitted through a car dealer. And they argued that studies cited in the lawsuits to support the accusations are flawed. ". . . "An analyst for Nissan said the plaintiffs' study . . . didn't control for any other factor other than race," said Janet Thornton, who conducted NMAC's own statistical analysis. Thornton said that, when the data are analyzed based on credit characteristics, "we find no differences by race in the markup charge." . . . ." (Say, Russ - Have you ever served as a vote counter in Florida?)
Well, that settles it. We be can confident that corporate officials would never lie about such things, after all.
Also from klg's link (left out purely by accident, I'm sure): ----- The suits...describe an agreement where lenders encourage car dealers to inflate the interest rate beyond the risk-related rate when they think a customer will pay it. The lenders acknowledge they share commissions with car dealers, but deny inflating the rates based on race. As for the markup policy, officials with both companies say it is a standard way to compensate the dealer for arranging the loan. "The plaintiffs call it a markup. ... We call it a commission," said Anne Fortney, an NMAC attorney. "The dealer is performing a service for the creditor and the consumer. ... If it weren't for this arrangement, we would have to have a loan officer at every single dealership." ---- So, while "both companies have zero-tolerance policies against discrimination", and "the lenders are never informed of the customer's race when a loan application is submitted through a car dealer", the dealer (who quite obviously is aware of the race of the buyer) seems to be the one setting the markup/commission. Hard to believe such a foolproof system could ever break down. Here's my favorite part: "GMAC's Farmer said it is 'an industry practice, and it's not illegal. We assume when we go to a store and buy something that it's marked up.' "Not illegal"--I like that; it's a wonderful rationale for all sorts of moral transgressions. And somebody should inform Mr Farmer that when we go to a store we do indeed assume items are marked up, but we assume they are *not* marked up based on the buyer's race.
The question that was raised was whether certain individuals (who suffered no personal harm) will automatically qualify for beneficial treatment solely based on race. You may attempt to weasel around all you wish, but despite your attempts at distraction, my case has been proved.
Re #189: Your quotes still don't say that, though. All they say is that the companies claim not to have been discriminating, which is exactly what I'd expect them to say. They don't say anything about giving minorities a preferred rate.
Actually, the settlement does call for Nissan to provide "no markup" financing (and a markup [aka "commission to the salesman who steered the buyer to Nissan's financing arm instead of a bank"] of some amount is the normal procedure) to 675,000 future minority-type automobile buyers. Us oppressed white folk who go to finance a Nissan will still have to pay whatever the usual markup is. Of course, they're only doing this to attone for screwing over godknowshowmany folks in the first place, but I gather klg doesn't figure that into the fairness equation.
Re #188: It's true that there's nothing (theoretically) wrong with pricing any good (including a loan) at what the market will bear, and customers for car loans are different just as air travellers are different. So long as there is no bait-and-switch or other unfair practices, it's within the law. But everything within the law isn't right. If the dealerships (which were acting as agents for GMAC in this situation, if I read everything right) were pushing loan-rate premiums at minority buyers more than others, they were discriminating. By the time someone has gone to the trouble of choosing a vehicle and filling out all the paperwork, they have a substantial investment in the process. To abandon that investment and go to a different dealer (or even choose a different brand) costs them, especially if they have no more time for car- shopping. There have been enough stories in the news of late about loan fraud that we should be very suspicious of any activity like this where the rate to be charged is not made clear at the outset. I doubt very much that this was the case. This should probably be stopped, because it is too close to sharp practices.
The question of whether the company may have been discriminating has nothing to do with my point. My concern is with how the "remedy" is being applied.
for you, relevance of past history is apparently only important when it supports your arguments. Like in the Iraq items where you gleefully talk about all the things Saddam Hussein has done in the past?
Another weapon of mass distraction? I am not taking issue with the fact that a penalty is being applied. I am taking issue with the "affirmative action" nature of it, whereby it is not being directed to benefit those who MIGHT suffered harm, but to a group of people based only on their race. I am not taking issue with the fact that a penalty is being applied. I am taking issue with the "affirmative action" nature of it, whereby it is not being directed to benefit those who MIGHT have suffered harm, but to a group of people based only on their race.
The opposition to affirmative action always strikes me as a ruse by racists to hold back minorities. The racists have mostly lost the formal legal battles concerning voting, accomodations, access, etc, but they realize that by opposing affirmative action they are opposing the final stages of integration, where it is subtle discrimination that still limits minority equal access to leadership levels of society. They never come up with any solutions to the remaining problems of racial discrimination - they just want to declare that if everyone is EQUAL they should get equal treatment in everything, conveniently forgetting that in fact, in the everyday operations of society, everyone is NOT equal because of racism.
It's more often an emotional issue.
First of all, the pro-affirmative-action side has to admit that
affirmative action is discrimination on the basis of race. It may be
discrimination with the goal of counteracting racist discrimination, but it
is discrimination.
Then imagine the feelings of someone who's denied a position, or a
college admission, because someone who technically lost to them by whatever
criteria are used for judgement is of a different race.
Whether it's for the public good or not, it still doesn't feel good.
re resp:196: Strange... I think every affirmative action proponent is a racist who thinks people of "lesser races" can't get along without special help. It seems to me that every one of them is trying to compensate for his discomfort about other races by giving them money and hoping they'll go away. It's an obvious ploy but doomed to failure. Oh, wait. I just remembered not everyone with whom I disagree can be lumped together into a single homogenous group which can be labeled "Those Who Are Wrong", and that my opinions aren't universal laws of nature.
Some people believe the Constitution means what is says. Others say it means what they believe.
The Constitution says that everyone is equal, but in fact everyone is not equal in several respects resulting from continuing racial discrimination. How do you plan to square that with the Constitution?
And many insist that it means what it says when what it says agrees with their interpretation and then claim it means something else when it's not so convenient to read it literally.
Affirmative action is a less-than-perfect way to address real concerns in a less-than-perfect society. There are those who argue that it should be dispensed with because it is unfair, and there are those who support it because it redresses other unfairnesses. They're ALL right, to some extent, so what we're left with is a COMPROMISE. Compromise in context of intractable differences in philosophy is the only means of progress. Get used to it.
I don't believe there is one person in the country who believes in the strictest, most literal, restrictive possible interpretation of the Constitution for every possible situation which can come up. Not as a guide to running the government. If there is such a person, I'm sure he's institutionalized somewhere.
re #200: how about if you show us the part of the Constitution that "says that everyone is equal" first, before we waste time discussing this?
Re #196:
I oppose Affirmative Action and I have stated a solution to the problem
of discrimination based on race: deny the decision makers knowledge of what
race any applicant is.
Re #200: Where, exactly, *does* the Constitution say that "everyone is equal"?
Amazingly enough, I find I aggree with Rcurls response 196.
/emote is led away laughing manically
>I have stated a solution to the problem of discrimination based on >race: deny the decision makers knowledge of what >race any applicant is. That my be do-able in college admissions, but almost impossible in practice for most other situations (applying for housing, say, or a job). Opponents of affirmative action could make a lot more headway if they were as vigorous in their promotion of all anti-discrimination policies, and not just those that hold down the white man.
None of the opponents of affirmative action here have put forward a practical way to eliminate racial descrimination in our society. More important, perhaps, they haven't even expressed any sympathy for the problem.
And why is it necessary for them to do so?
Because there is a problem to be solved that they are ignoring in promoting their objective. This makes it look very much like they have an ulterior motive. Why all this stress on a minor problem in the face of the much greater problem?
Re #210: Perhaps they believe that the means being used to correct the problem are worse than the problem, or the government is not entitled to use such means under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution isn't worth much if the government can ignore it.
only the people can force the gummint to stay within the boundries of the constitution - an informed/educated people, btw. teh ignorant will be oppressed, as usual.
Is Diversity Overrated? By STANLEY ROTHMAN March 29, 2003 NORTHAMPTON, Mass. The Supreme Court hears arguments next week in the cases that may determine whether racial and ethnic preferences in higher education admissions and hiring are preserved or discarded. Whatever it decides, the court should be skeptical of one of the most popular justifications for preferential treatment of minority applicants: that a diverse student body necessarily improves the quality of education for everyone. One of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken of diversity in higher education indicates that this contention is at least questionable. The study's findings show that college diversity programs fail to raise standards, and that a majority of faculty members and administrators recognize this when speaking anonymously. . . (I)n 1999 we surveyed a random sample of more than 1,600 students and 2,400 faculty members and administrators at 140 American colleges and universities, asking them to evaluate the quality of education at their institution, the academic preparation and work habits of the student body, the state of race relations on campus and their own experiences of discrimination. . . If diversity works as advertised, we surmised, then those at institutions with higher proportions of black enrollment should rate their educational and racial milieus more favorably than their peers at institutions with lower proportions. The results contradict almost every benefit claimed for campus diversity. Students, faculty members and administrators all responded to increasing racial diversity by registering increased dissatisfaction with the quality of education and the work ethic of their peers. Students also increasingly complained about discrimination. Moreover, diversity fails to deliver even when all else is equal. . . . A higher level of diversity is associated with somewhat less educational satisfaction and worse race relations among students. . . We also asked students about policies used to increase diversity. Three out of four oppose "relaxing academic standards" to increase minority representation, as do a majority of faculty members. And an overwhelming 85 percent of students specifically reject the use of racial or ethnic "preferences" along with a majority of faculty members. More telling, 62 percent of minority students oppose relaxing standards, and 71 percent oppose preferences. Among the most striking findings is the silent opposition of so many who administer these programs yet must publicly support them. Although a small majority of administrators support admissions preferences, 47.7 percent oppose them. In addition, when asked to estimate the impact of preferential admissions on university academic standards, about two-thirds say there is none. Most dismaying, of those who think that preferences have some impact on academic standards, those believing it negative exceed those believing it positive by 15 to 1. . . . Stanley Rothman, professor emeritus of government at Smith College, is director of the Center for the Study of Social and Political Change. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Did you go to UM Law School? Then fuck off.
Why, Mr. jmsaul! Are you addressing nous?
Yes, I am. Since you didn't actually go there, and I did, I don't value your opinions on whether diversity in the law school student body provides a better experience for the white students.
So please, show us your data.
You have several choices: