response 137 of 232:

Jan 23 15:17 UTC 2003

Re #136: Yes, but you can still only get a maximum of 20 points in the
'miscellaneous factors' category.  You can't get 20 for being black, 6
for being rural, and 4 for being a legacy and end up with a total of 30.

response 139 of 232:

Jan 23 17:24 UTC 2003

re:  "#130 (rcurl):   a nation that has a large percentage of active or 
venal racists."

You've taken a poll or something to substantiate this, I presume.

response 141 of 232:

Jan 23 18:06 UTC 2003

    ANd what always on the table is the inability to move to a place 
where better jobs and schools are available. It takes a job to earn 
the money for a new place, and employment, as aready noted isn't there.

response 143 of 232:

Jan 23 19:12 UTC 2003

re 133:
        I certainly won't argue that a black kid from a wealthy neighborhood
(I think I met three or four such people in the 21 years I lived in Michigan)
doesn't have advantages that black kids in poor neighborhoods don't.  Their
experiences are likely to be worlds apart.  Are you arguing that the black
kid from a wealthy neighborhood has all the advantages of a white kid from
a wealthy neighborhood?  That sounds like a much harder case to make, given
that the white kid will be treated like they belong in the neighborhood, and
the black kid will tend to be treated with some degree of suspicion.

re 135:
        There certainly has been a lot of discrimination in the US against
various European ethnic groups.  My step mother's Italian grandfather, for
example, had to change his name before he was able to get a job as a lawyer
in New York.  It certainly wasn't good, but a generation later his kids,
having been born in the US with American sounding names and American accents,
were mainstream white Americans.  

But I think the history of discrimination in this context is mainly useful
in helping us understand why things are the way they are today, rather than
in determining who is being discriminated against today.  That a group was
discriminated against heavily several decades ago but has since assimilated
is evidence that they don't need Affirmative Action today, not that it
wouldn't have been fair to give Affirmative Action to members of that group
at one point.  The reason to give extra admissions points to black people
today is that for various historical and societal reasons, much of the US
black population is trapped in an environment in which it's very difficult
to succeed, and it's not getting better on its own.

John argues that Affirmative Action treats people differently because policy
makers think, becuase of their ethnicity, that they're unable to compete with
other people, and likens this treatment to segregation -- keeping the races
separate.  What we have in fact is a group of people who, because of their
ethnicity, have been separated from the rest of society and placed at a
considerable disadvantage.  This is segregation.  Affirmative Action is a
recognition of that societally imposed disadvantage, and an attempt to
compensate for it.  Affirmative Action is a recognition that the starting
points for the two groups weren't equal, and an attempt to bring the groups
back together by compensating for that.

response 145 of 232:

Jan 23 20:09 UTC 2003

And to answer your question regarding advantages.  Yes, I think a black
kid, raised in a wealthy environment, put through good schools and tucked
in at night by loving parents has all the same advantages and chance for
success as his or her white best friend coming from the same type of home. 

I believe we've come that far.  Which is not to say that's far 
enough.

response 147 of 232:

Jan 23 23:10 UTC 2003

Re 144:  Your idea about looking at individuals is certainly the best way to
figure out who is best suited for admission, but it would require a great deal
of resources and some compromises in order to scale up to UM admissions
numbers.  How many people apply each year, anyway?

response 149 of 232:

Jan 24 00:14 UTC 2003

re resp:143: I know what affirmative action is for.  I can see you have 
good intentions in supporting it's use.

I'm suggesting it doesn't work and will not work.  Groups which have 
been treated separately have not become assimilated very well into 
American society.  Those who have not received special treatment have 
overcome discrimination and the disadvantages of whatever group they're 
in and become recognized as general Americans.

Do you know who deserves special help?  I don't think it's every black 
person, every Hispanic, every gay, every Italian, etc.  I think it's 
every person with a disadvantage who needs help.  That's what Mary is 
saying, too, I think.  (It's weird being on the same side of an 
argument with Mary, but interesting.)

Ethnic groups don't need advantages, because the members don't all have 
the same problems.  Also because we try to regard different treatment 
due to ethnicity to be wrong.

The reason why every one of us isn't the president or a Nobel Prize 
winner or a millionaire is because we're disadvantaged, compared to the 
people in those positions.  We're not charming, smart or connected 
enough, and we're certainly not driven enough.

response 151 of 232:

Jan 24 01:40 UTC 2003

Yes, those black folk do pine for the Jim Crow days when they risked lynching
if they dared to vote.

response 153 of 232:

Jan 24 03:47 UTC 2003

re resp:151: There is much difference between doing away with Jim Crow 
laws, and affirmative action.  I thought the Jim Crow laws went out in 
the 50's, anyway.  Those that were left from the earlier part of the 
century.

response 157 of 232:

Jan 26 02:36 UTC 2003

I prefer the term 'honky'. ;)

response 159 of 232:

Jan 26 07:24 UTC 2003

re #158:

> Irish, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, etc, have been discriminated at various
> times in our history.  HOWEVER, _none_ of them have been enslaved more
> recently than the late 1700s. ...  Without slavery, the dynamic was different
> for those groups.  Eventually, others supplanted them at the bottom.

  The overwhelming majority of Irish, Italian, Chinese, and Japanese
  immigration to this country occurred *after* the Civil War.  Even were
  that not the case, based on what you have written above I don't see how
  your point concerning slavery amounts to much more than a logical
  non sequitur.  The statement is true but has no demonstrated relevance
  to your argument.