|
Grex > Diversity > #11: Whittier College Republicans to hold "Affirmative Action Bake Sale" |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 217 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 139 of 217:
| 
Feb 5 19:12 UTC 2003 |
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).
|
klg
|
|
response 140 of 217:
|
Feb 5 19:33 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
gull
|
|
response 141 of 217:
|
Feb 5 20:01 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 142 of 217:
|
Feb 5 20:13 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 143 of 217:
|
Feb 5 20:25 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jep
|
|
response 144 of 217:
|
Feb 5 21:23 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 145 of 217:
|
Feb 6 03:27 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 146 of 217:
|
Feb 6 03:45 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
keesan
|
|
response 147 of 217:
|
Feb 6 03:51 UTC 2003 |
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).
|
russ
|
|
response 148 of 217:
|
Feb 6 04:38 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 149 of 217:
|
Feb 6 05:57 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 150 of 217:
|
Feb 6 14:20 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 151 of 217:
|
Feb 6 17:29 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 152 of 217:
|
Feb 6 17:52 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 153 of 217:
|
Feb 6 18:30 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 154 of 217:
|
Feb 6 18:34 UTC 2003 |
Nope.
|
klg
|
|
response 155 of 217:
|
Feb 6 18:43 UTC 2003 |
Shucks!
|
mvpel
|
|
response 156 of 217:
|
Feb 15 23:10 UTC 2003 |
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.
===========================
|
carson
|
|
response 157 of 217:
|
Feb 16 02:42 UTC 2003 |
(that's nice, Mikey. what about the Whittiers?)
|
mvpel
|
|
response 158 of 217:
|
Feb 16 05:44 UTC 2003 |
Haven't seen any news reports on it. And thats MR. Mikey to you, bub.
|
carson
|
|
response 159 of 217:
|
Feb 16 20:31 UTC 2003 |
(sorry, Mr. Mikey.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 160 of 217:
|
Feb 20 16:32 UTC 2003 |
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)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 161 of 217:
|
Feb 20 17:13 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
other
|
|
response 162 of 217:
|
Feb 20 17:21 UTC 2003 |
Actually, the price should be the same for all UM students, since they
all got into the UM...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 163 of 217:
|
Feb 20 17:29 UTC 2003 |
Sorry, I should have shown the sarcasm flag for #161.
|