Affirmative Action

[WillJ]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
my average? What do you mean by that?

Er, replace "your" with "an."

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
Without AA, a very small % of Blacks would have access to higher education. That would desserve to be called discrimination.

1. I seriously doubt too many people at universities care about someone's race and would discriminate based on such.

2. Sure, on average blacks have a worse education than whites when it comes time to go to college, but again, that's a problem that should be solved in and of itself, rather than forcing colleges to accept these less educated people through AA.

3. What does that even have to do with anything? It doesn't change the fact that what you're advocating is discrimination.

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
Sometimes, you have to look at the past to understand the present situation.

Sometimes, you have to look at the present to understand the present situation.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

.Sure, on average blacks have a worse education than whites when it comes time to go to college, but again, that's a problem that should be solved in and of itself, rather than forcing colleges to accept these less educated people through AA.

AA is an attempt to correct this situation. Why don't you whine against lack of funding rather that whining against AA?

What does that even have to do with anything? It doesn't change the fact that what you're advocating is discrimination.

Given the fact that blacks have a worse education than whites and therefore have less chances of being admitted, doing nothing should be considered as discrimination, not helping them.

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
AA is an attempt to correct this situation. Why don't you whine against lack of funding rather that whining against AA?



Given the fact that blacks have a worse education than whites and therefore have less chances of being admitted, doing nothing should be considered as discrimination, not helping them.

The only people that agree with you here are the politicians and a FEW professors. Everyone else doesn't try to be so involved in race issues. Most Americans are concerned with people economically disadvantaged getting tinto college.

Lets put it this way, a black rich guy and a white rich guy act and usually think along similar lines. To me two people from both the upper and working classes of the same color represents more true diversity in the system then two people that are the same economic class (upper) and are different colors. College admission of the poor HAS gone down since AA came into effect. They are the ones being discriminated against, since they lack the resources. However you couldn't care about the ones that aren't black. Let me assure you that the blacks getting into these colleges aren't the poor ones but the upper class ones.

 

[student]

Again I post my questions for BloodyPepperoni, waiting for an answer to each and not just something evasive or off the subject:

Why not make aa according to socioeconomic status, not race?

Why do you take the racist assumption that blacks and indians are the only races that can be poor?

Why should a rich black person from a good school get admitted over a poor white person from a poor school who is more qualified just because he is white?

 

[The Yankee]

Okay, so to BloodyPepperoni....if AA is in its current state, how long do you plan on holding this up? It's already starting some resentment now.....it's been in place for a few decades.

 

[luiz]

And it's unfair...
We can't use an unfair tactic to solve our problems.
The white population of today has no blame at all that the black population is worse off then they are, and thus the whites cannot be punished for this.

 

[The Yankee]

Which is also why I think reparations are stupid...don't know if you've heard about this idea in Brazil.....though, I don't see it succeeding.

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by The Yankee
Which is also why I think reparations are stupid...don't know if you've heard about this idea in Brazil.....though, I don't see it succeeding.

That gives me an idea. I want reperations and an increased likelyhood of getting a job I wouldn't be qualified for.

-Reperations for being Cuban (colonized by US after ousting Spain)
-Reperations for being Catholic (Catholics were treated harshly by the early Protestant settlers in the 'New World').

I also demand reperations from foreign nations. These ones come to mind:

1) United Kingdom (England really)- part Irish (controlled)
2) Russia- part Ukrainian (controlled)
3) Spain- part Cuban (colony)
4) Germany- part French (WW2 occupation)
5) France- part German (post WW1 treatment)

I guess 4 and 5 cancel out.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

The only people that agree with you here are the politicians and a FEW professors.

I found an interesting poll on that matter. Poll

The University of Michigan defends its admissions policies by pointing to its commitment to having a diverse student body. That is a goal most Americans agree with; 79% think it is important for a college to have a racially diverse student body. 19% think that is not an important goal.

Overall, Americans (even Whites) favor Affirmative Action. You speak for yourself, certainly not for an entire country.

However you couldn't care about the ones that aren't black

AA does not target Blacks only. You make me sound like a racist. I'm not posting in this thread to defend especially Afro Americans. I'm not Afro American, I don't know personally any Afro American and I have no ties with any of them. Actually, I feel like arguing against a group of white Al Sharptons, since almost everyone posting in this thread is against AA and sees racism everywhere, even in attempts to compensate for past discrimination.

 

[luiz]

"Reparation" is the rhetoric that some supposedly "pro-black" groups use to justify giving quotas to blacks on Colleges and Public Service.

They say that since the brazilian state exploited blacks for so long time, Brazil should give reparations to blacks for a long time.

What they forget is that when "Brazil pays reparations" to someone, it's the brazilian people who are paying, and the brazilian people of today never exploited a single black. Even in the past, only a very samll minority owned slaves, something like 5% of the popualtion. Why the hell should we all pay for what 5% of the people did centuries ago?

 

[Zarn]

I told you most Americans don't support it.

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_affirmative_action.htm

In February 2003, for example, the Los Angeles Times found that Americans opposed the University of Michigan’s racial preference plan by 56% to 26% -- but supported preferences for economically disadvantaged students of all races by 59% to 31%.

A month earlier, Newsweek came up with similar results. It found that Americans opposed preferences for blacks in university admissions by 68% to 26%, but supported preferences for low-income students of all races by 65% to 28%.

 

[The Yankee]

Originally posted by Zarn
That gives me an idea. I want reperations and an increased likelyhood of getting a job I wouldn't be qualified for.

-Reperations for being Cuban (colonized by US after ousting Spain)
-Reperations for being Catholic (Catholics were treated harshly by the early Protestant settlers in the 'New World').

I also demand reperations from foreign nations. These ones come to mind:

1) United Kingdom (England really)- part Irish (controlled)
2) Russia- part Ukrainian (controlled)
3) Spain- part Cuban (colony)
4) Germany- part French (WW2 occupation)
5) France- part German (post WW1 treatment)

I guess 4 and 5 cancel out.

Hey....yeah, my grandparents suffered in a Nazi slave labor camp for three years. And one of my grandmother's family members was shipped off to Siberia....so, all former Soviet nations can pay for that....plus a portion of my father's family fled Russia because of Jewish repression...and Prussia, Austria, and Russia should pay for taking my Polish family's land....I could go on and on....I'll make more than I'll pay in reparations here.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Jorge
As for the best way to fight racism, some people think that equality will be only reached when racial minorities have access to similar economic conditions than the white people. Only then we will be able to forget the skin color and racial differences. Untill then the racial minorities will fell opressed.

this is rubbish. racial differences will exist for as long as we continue to acknowledge them. stop acknowledging them on a social scale and you will be on the right path.

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
my average? What do you mean by that?

This is the best way i've seen to avoid answering a question yet!

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
Overall, Americans (even Whites) favor Affirmative Action. You speak for yourself, certainly not for an entire country.

that statistic says nothing except that 79% of Americans are racist.

put simply, pepperoni, 2 wrongs do not make a right. a policy based on racial discrimination cannot make up for the treatment of non-white races in the past.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Originally posted by student
Again I post my questions for BloodyPepperoni, waiting for an answer to each and not just something evasive or off the subject:

Why not make aa according to socioeconomic status, not race?



Why do you take the racist assumption that blacks and indians are the only races that can be poor?



Why should a rich black person from a good school get admitted over a poor white person from a poor school who is more qualified just because he is white?

What can I say? I am like arguing against 5-6 people at the time. Why? Because posters on this thread tend to see only one side of the coin. It would have been interesting to hear the opinion of people 'advantaged' by AA. You guys seem to feel 'agressed' by AA, since I assume you belong to the category of people that are not 'advantaged' by AA.

If really AA is such an unfair, racist, backward and useless program, I fail to see why it is not rejected by a clear majority of the population. I also fail ot see why it lasted 40 years and still goes on.

 

[Zarn]

I can easily use AA to my advantage this my Cuban origin is my largest portion and I look Hispanic. I don't because it is wrong. I have black friends who say the same about AA.

 

[The Yankee]

Because the courts have kept it in place.

How long do you plan on using this system, I ask again. Why don't we all just give a bunch of cash to these people?

And...there are non-white groups that don't get the benefits of the current AA system? And what about the white people that are just as disadvantaged as many others?

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by The Yankee
Because the courts have kept it in place.

How long do you plan on using this system, I ask again. Why don't we all just give a bunch of cash to these people?

And...there are non-white groups that don't get the benefits of the current AA system? And what about the white people that are just as disadvantaged as many others?

Asians were not affected, and Hispanics were hurt in certain areas of the conutry. Native Americans are too sparse, so I can't tell with them.

 

[Syterion]

If really AA is such an unfair, racist, backward and useless program, I fail to see why it is not rejected by a clear majority of the population. I also fail ot see why it lasted 40 years and still goes on.

Why hasn't it been rejected yet? Simple. I hate to say it, but most people are idiots. Slavery was in place for most of history. I kind of think that slavery is unfair, racist, and backward. In the early 1800's, my opinion would be in the minority. But I think we can all agree that just because slavery was in place for quite some time, that doesn't justify it.

One more thing-I find it weird that you still think that AA is accpeted by a majority, yet obviously most people on these boards are Anti-AA. I know this isn't the greatest sample, but I think it makes the point.

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by Zarn
I told you most Americans don't support it.

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_affirmative_action.htm

In February 2003, for example, the Los Angeles Times found that Americans opposed the University of Michigan’s racial preference plan by 56% to 26% -- but supported preferences for economically disadvantaged students of all races by 59% to 31%.

A month earlier, Newsweek came up with similar results. It found that Americans opposed preferences for blacks in university admissions by 68% to 26%, but supported preferences for low-income students of all races by 65% to 28%.

Come on guys. The people are actually are on our side.

 

[student]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
What can I say? I am like arguing against 5-6 people at the time. Why? Because posters on this thread tend to see only one side of the coin. It would have been interesting to hear the opinion of people 'advantaged' by AA. You guys seem to feel 'agressed' by AA, since I assume you belong to the category of people that are not 'advantaged' by AA.

If really AA is such an unfair, racist, backward and useless program, I fail to see why it is not rejected by a clear majority of the population. I also fail ot see why it lasted 40 years and still goes on.

It's very difficult to look at the other side of the coin when you refuse to show it to me! You keep saying the same things, and all I'm asking for is exact answers to each of the following questions, not reasons why you won't answer them.

Why not make aa according to socioeconomic status, not race?



Why do you take the racist assumption that blacks and indians and other non-whites are the only races that can be poor?



Why should a rich black (or other minority) person from a good school get admitted over a poor white person from a poor school who is more qualified just because he is white?