"Antiquity" is a crappy reason to abolish something. Right... The sooner we stop trying to redress past discrimination the sooner the white race can take advantage of a situation they helped to create from years of past discrimination. That makes sense...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Care to prove your assertion? When other concepts are proven to be unscientific I am sure you are the first one willing to show them the door. Why should this be any different?
It also shows how limited people's understanding of race is and how they are now starting to intermix race and culture to accomplish political objectives instead of simply ridding the word of racism.
Hispanice for example isn't a race yet people are asked if they happen to be it.
Antiquated non-scientific thinking gave us this past. The same thinking even when reversed should not be expected to give us our future.
As for the future, the change it represents is coming whether you care to accept it or not. In California everyone is such a mish-mash of everything that it gets silly to try to track it.
If I take a child who is black and hispanic are they bi-racial? What about black and asian? How about hispanic and asian? How about italian, mexican and filipino?
The idiocy of this perspective is insane. It is like the deep south again. You folks see someone like Tiger Woods who describes himself as Caucasian, Indian, Black and Asian and you have the good'ol one drop rule making him black in your minds.
The future is coming. It doesn't have races. Tough if you don't like it.
But we both know that if Ol' Johnson gives $500K a year to the college, his boy is going to get no matter how qualified he is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
debateable...
some colleges (harvard) have such a gread endowmant they dont need to water down their applicant pool to get $500000 a year
The test is whether they receive federal funds, which all good private schools, like Yale and Harvard, do. They get tons of money in federal grants. (I think. I could be wrong about that.)<hr></blockquote>
Yer not wrong. I'd wager nearly all private institutions get Federal financing. Federal money was, for instance, the wedge used to get e.g., Brown University to fund men and women's sports teams equally (Title IX).
MIT's a good example of a private institution practically built with Federal (research) dollars.
some colleges (harvard) have such a gread endowmant they dont need to water down their applicant pool to get $500000 a year<hr></blockquote>
Don't count on it. An amusing parlor game is to figure out just how much money you'd have to give e.g. Harvard to change the name to e.g. Paul University. The number may be in the billions, but there is a number.
Care to prove your assertion? When other concepts are proven to be unscientific I am sure you are the first one willing to show them the door. Why should this be any different?
It also shows how limited people's understanding of race is and how they are now starting to intermix race and culture to accomplish political objectives instead of simply ridding the word of racism.
Hispanice for example isn't a race yet people are asked if they happen to be it.
Antiquated non-scientific thinking gave us this past. The same thinking even when reversed should not be expected to give us our future.
As for the future, the change it represents is coming whether you care to accept it or not. In California everyone is such a mish-mash of everything that it gets silly to try to track it.
If I take a child who is black and hispanic are they bi-racial? What about black and asian? How about hispanic and asian? How about italian, mexican and filipino?
The idiocy of this perspective is insane. It is like the deep south again. You folks see someone like Tiger Woods who describes himself as Caucasian, Indian, Black and Asian and you have the good'ol one drop rule making him black in your minds.
The future is coming. It doesn't have races. Tough if you don't like it.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
You talk about current thinking being antiquidated but base whatever you're saying on something that may or may not happen in the future. That doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. But that little spiel will do nothing for minorities right now. And that's the way you want it.
<strong>Why is legacy admissions harder to get rid of than race-based admissions? They would be stopped in exactly the same way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In this particular case it is as easy to get rid of as Affirmative Action. I believe in this case the ethnicity of someone can receive up to 20 points while being a legacy receives 6 or something like that.
I would gladly tell them to toss that 6 points as well however that isn't what the school is being sued over. (This really shows the insanity of writing policy via lawsuits but that is another thread I suppose.)
However that is this particular instance. As was mentioned when someone can call someone's dad. When someone can pull a lever not even related to an official process that is much harder to prove.
As I mentioned Colin Hanks just happens to get a movie deal. Tori Spelling just happens to land parts on her dad's shows. Lil'Bow Wow gets heavily promoted and gee just happens to be related to Snoop Dogg.
How do you prove this sort of thing or basically how do you stop a parent or family member from helping someone else? I think it is pretty much impossible and either way shouldn't be used to justify another wrong.
That's kinda harsh, Shawn. You're not 100% sure of what he really wants, are you?
He could be very insulted by that, as would I.
I'd hate to think that my personal opinions and beliefs that race should become LESS of a factor (and instead you're judged more on your character, work ethic, grades, employer evaluations, ideas, drive and will to succeed, etc.) automatically links an unsavory name or image to me.
Isn't right to assume people who are opposed to AA are doing it out of bigoted meanness and less-than-honorable intentions. Maybe they simply don't believe or support it for the reasons talked about...and if those reasons don't sit well with your take on it, that's still not a good reason to imply that "how someone wants it".
Last time I checked, Ward Connerly was black. And Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell and Armstrong Williams. And none of them are too crazy about AA.
<strong>Last time I checked, Ward Connerly was black. And Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell and Armstrong Williams. And none of them are too crazy about AA. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I get what your saying. But if Affirmative Action goes away, how else will minorities advance? It's a proven fact that college enrollment drops significantly. It's just not time for it to go. So that's why I question the motives of those who want to remove it so quickly. Even Mr. Keyes....
You talk about current thinking being antiquidated but base whatever you're saying on something that may or may not happen in the future. That doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. But that little spiel will do nothing for minorities right now. And that's the way you want it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What doesn't make sense? That people will continue to love and reproduce with whomever they want to?
And as for helping minorities, I'll have you know that in California I happen to be a minority. Since whites are lumped together (but not hispanics, Indians and other groups who are caucasian) I am one of the 45% of Californians who happen to be "white." (even though I am Irish, English, German and Italian which would make me non-white by Aryan racist standards)
Since I am also male and we are about 47% of that 45% that means I look like 21% of the population in the state in which I live.
To say I would go around wishing ill will on 53-79% percent of the population is ridiculous and shows your limited understanding. To think I could somehow even control 79% of the population gives me far to much credit. (Why would I need laws, I must have superpowers) It also shows you would rather call people a racist than try to support your limited thinking since it is logically inconsistant and unscientific.
Just because you endorse diversity doesn't mean you experience it. Trying to put silly little labels on people limits their thinking and likely limits their future because all they will be concentrating on is who their parents loved in the past.
Suppose you married that girlfriend of yours Shawn. She was labeled asian but likely has a cultural background from one particular asian country or perhaps even more. She is already bi-cultural eitherway because she lives in the U.S. (heck she was likely born here)
Finally what is your own background? It is likely from multiple countries as well. What they heck are you going to call your kids? What are you going to do when they come home with a boyfriend or girlfriend who has an equally diverse background? What would you call grandkids?
You might have to wait 20-30 years to see this back east but in California it has already been happening for years. Perhaps in a generaltion the rest of the country might be 45% white (by antiquated measurements again) but it is that way in California today.
I think a future free of labels is beautiful. You can sit there with your one drop thinking and go burn some crosses or something.
How about Condi & Colin?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know. Ask them.
I'm not 100% certain on their take on it because I don't really pay much attention to them, nor have I read articles by or about them as much as I have Keyes, Williams, Sowell, etc.
I believe Powell supports it. Not sure about Ms. Rice. Don't know that much about her at all, to be honest.
But I also don't know what the big brouhaha and hype is about Colin Powell, especially among Republicans. It seems that the idiots in the party who decide this sort of thing were so hard-up to woo him to their side that they never stopped to look that he's not very conservative on many issues.
I think he's more like a Democrat on social/cultural issues.
I've not quite been able to figure that one out yet. Republicans strained their backs to bring him on board and give him a prominent place in the part and he doesn't seem to possess 1/10 the charisma, intelligence and passion that Keyes does. Keyes, if anything, is probably TOO conservative for the GOP leadership's tastes.
Well, yes, trumptman, I agree with you that a future free of labels is beautiful. I agree with you that race shouldn't be an issue in anything. But not right now for the latter. If you take away Affirmative Action, you will see massive drops in enrollment rates in college. Bush's plan in Texas already saw massive drops. Taking away AA is not going to solve anything.
<strong>Yeah, I get what your saying. But if Affirmative Action goes away, how else will minorities advance? It's a proven fact that college enrollment drops significantly. It's just not time for it to go. So that's why I question the motives of those who want to remove it so quickly. Even Mr. Keyes....</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is a proven fact where? Because some liberal columnist repeated it until it was true?
Besides are you more interested in admission rates or graduation rates.
In California when they implemented color-blind admission for UC and CSU schools the number of black and hispanic applicants admitted did drop...at UCLA and UC Berkley. However they were the most elite UC schools. The overall level of minorities admitted stayed the same. Instead they were routed to campuses where the student ability was similar (regardless of race) and flourished. The graduation rates (which is what it really is all about isn't it) are higher than ever.
You could admit more of whatever group, but the point really is are they going to be able to compete and graduate. I myself (being the Shawn labeled racist that I am) went to a state school and did well. Perhaps I could have gone to a more prestigious school but since no one in my family had ever been to college, I didn't even know the criteria for applying to them. (I did take the SAT's and apply on time because of thoughtful caring adults but they weren't going with me to Long Beach)
Say I had gone somewhere most expensive and prestigious. Perhaps I would have simply been buried by the shear inability to compete, not on an intellectual level, but on a financial, and social level.
I already encountered when I did go to college (You learned your music at a PUBLIC SCHOOL where are your years of private lessons and summer music camps?) and while I was able to overcome it there, I certainly couldn't have done that at a 25k+ a year school or a school in say the top 1% of schools. The gap would have been too large.
We make these sort of decisions all the time. People decide to go to a school where they might get attention instead of being just another number. In sports they might go where they can start instead of sitting on the bench. You go where you can press your advantages into more opportunities. If you go somewhere where you are at a total disadvantage then the rate of failure is very high and that isn't because of racism. It is because of reality.
<strong>Yeah, I get what your saying. But if Affirmative Action goes away, how else will minorities advance...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't know.
How about: Stay in school? Take school seriously? Don't buy into the bullshit that being able to read, count and speak well is somehow "acting white"? Don't knock up several women and father four children by the time your reach 21? And if you're a woman, don't put your legs in the air for every sweet-talking, promise-making Romeo who comes into your life? If you do want to do the sex thing, then - at the very least - take precautions so you don't have to be a mother or father at 16? Develop a work ethic and a sense of right and wrong? Don't base your life on dead rappers and thuggish pro athletes? Don't get involved in selling crack in the neighborhood? Don't make "joining a gang at 12 years old" number one on life's big "to do list"? Don't pick up a gun and try to cultivate the image of a gangsta bad-ass? Don't attach unrealistic glamor to the whole "thug life" scene, jail, having a record, etc. Get a job and work so you don't have the time - between work and school - to get out there and fück your life up like so many have done over the years?
It's amazing the amount of trouble and grief you can probably avoid in life when you're occupied with school and a job. You simply don't have time to engage in all the nonsense above...not if you want a better life for yourself.
I don't know. There are any number of things that pop into my mind, right off the bat! EVERY thing I listed above is VOLUNTARY or is able to be done or not done by the person.
It's choices and deciding that "yeah, maybe I'll get called names and maybe even endure the occasional ass-beating...but I'm NOT going to give in and go down that road. I've seen it destroy too many lives of those around me. I'm BETTER than that low-rent bullshit!"
Basically, the same way lots of people do, Shawn. I'm not rich and I certainly had (nor have) any connections. Fear of getting a spanking, combined with not wanting to disappoint or let down my parents and grandparents, kept me pretty grounded and out of trouble.
Yeah, I'm white. But I'd like to think that some things are kinda universal and apply no matter what.
And if you don't do it for the reasons I did (if you're from a horrible, broken home situation or whatever), then that's even MORE reason to simply do it for yourself, I would think.
You'd want to bust your ass to get the grades and knowledge necessary to carry you out of a miserable, dead-end life.
<strong>Taking away AA is not going to solve anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But REPLACING AA with something more fundamental would be better.
Why do you (US in general) try to iron out differences relatively late in a persons life by introducing new differencemaking methods when you could have avoided much of the differences in the early periode of the childs life? We know alot about what social factors that desides the life chances of people. Why not use that knowledge actively?
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
How about: Stay in school? Take school seriously? Don't buy into the bullshit that being able to read, count and speak well is somehow "acting white"? Exercise some control and common sense and don't fück everyone that comes into your life and have - or father - 4 children by the time you turn 21? If you do decide to screw a lot, take precautions and be smart? Develop a work ethic and a sense of right and wrong? Don't base your life on dead rappers and thuggish pro athletes? Don't get involved in selling crack in the neighborhood? Don't make "joining a gang at 12 years old" number one on life's big "to do list"? Don't pick up a gun and try to cultivate the image of a gangsta bad-ass? Don't attach unrealistic glamor to the whole "thug life" scene, jail, having a record, etc. Get a job and work so you don't have the time - between work and school - to get out there and fück your life up?
I don't know. There are any number of things that pop into my mind, right off the bat! EVERY thing I listed above is VOLUNTARY or is able to be done or not done by the person.
It's choices and deciding that "yeah, maybe I'll get called names and maybe even endure the occasional ass-beating...but I'm NOT going to give in and go down that road. I've seen it destroy too many lives of those around me. I'm BETTER than that low-rent bullshit!"
Basically, the same way lots of people do, Shawn. I'm not rich and I certainly had (nor have) any connections. Fear of getting a spanking, combined with not wanting to disappoint or let down my parents and grandparents, kept me pretty grounded and out of trouble.
Yeah, I'm white. But I'd like to think that some things are kinda universal and apply no matter what.
And if you don't do it for the reasons I did (if you're from a horrible, broken home situation or whatever), then that's even MORE reason to simply do it for yourself, I would think.
You'd want to bust your ass to get the grades and knowledge necessary to carry you out of a miserable, dead-end life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOS ANGELES -- Admissions of blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans at the University of California have returned to nearly the same levels they were before a statewide ballot initiative forced the university system to abandon affirmative-action programs four years ago.
Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans comprise 18.6 percent of the freshmen admitted to the 10 schools in the University of California
system for the fall 2001 class, up from 17.6 percent in 2000. The groups represented 18.8 percent of the students admitted to the freshman class in fall 1997, the last year the university was allowed to use race and gender as factors in selecting students.
Overall freshman admission rose by 10 percent, a result of a boom in the population of teenagers and young adults. Among other groups, admission
of whites rose by 9.2 percent and Asians 8.7 percent.
But university officials, reporting the figures this week, mainly attribute the minority gains to several new programs: investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve public schools in poor neighborhoods; outreach to high schools that do not traditionally send many students to the University of California; the automatic admission
of students who rank in the top 4 percent of every state high school; and a scholarship for high school students who graduate with at least a
B average.
Nevertheless, the number of minority students admitted to the system's prestigious Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses, though growing, still
lags behind that from 1997.
At Berkeley, 1,303 underrepresented minorities were admitted for the fall 2001 freshman class, up from 1,169 in 2000. At UCLA, the number rose to 1,521 from 1,449. That compares with 1997 admission figures of 1,778 for Berkeley and 2,010 for UCLA.
"The university should be pleased with the direction of the numbers, but there is still more work to do," said Warren Fox, executive director of the California PostSecondary Education Commission.
"It's really a remarkable turnaround in a short period," said Ward Connerly, the University of California regent who led efforts to abolish
affirmative action at the school and throughout the state. "It really proves that black and Latino kids do not need preferences to get to the
university."
Also, the number of underrepresented minorities who end up actually enrolling has risen over the past few years, according to university officials.
The Board of Regents approved a measure in 1995 to stop using race and gender in admissions by fall 1998. California voters in 1996 approved Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action statewide.
University officials said they think initial anger has subsided over the measures, which contributed to a decrease in minority enrollment.
The University of California's minority enrollment has been closely watched as other post-secondary schools and courts across the nation debate whether to dismantle other affirmative-action programs.
A federal judge in Michigan last week ruled that a preference program at the University of Michigan Law School was unconstitutional. Observers
think either that case or lawsuits targeting similar admissions policies at the University of Washington and the University of Georgia could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the merits of such programs.
Comments
<strong>
"Antiquity" is a crappy reason to abolish something. Right... The sooner we stop trying to redress past discrimination the sooner the white race can take advantage of a situation they helped to create from years of past discrimination. That makes sense...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Care to prove your assertion? When other concepts are proven to be unscientific I am sure you are the first one willing to show them the door. Why should this be any different?
It also shows how limited people's understanding of race is and how they are now starting to intermix race and culture to accomplish political objectives instead of simply ridding the word of racism.
Hispanice for example isn't a race yet people are asked if they happen to be it.
Antiquated non-scientific thinking gave us this past. The same thinking even when reversed should not be expected to give us our future.
As for the future, the change it represents is coming whether you care to accept it or not. In California everyone is such a mish-mash of everything that it gets silly to try to track it.
If I take a child who is black and hispanic are they bi-racial? What about black and asian? How about hispanic and asian? How about italian, mexican and filipino?
The idiocy of this perspective is insane. It is like the deep south again. You folks see someone like Tiger Woods who describes himself as Caucasian, Indian, Black and Asian and you have the good'ol one drop rule making him black in your minds.
The future is coming. It doesn't have races. Tough if you don't like it.
Nick
How many of us, like George W., received affirmative action to get to third base, but thought we had hit a triple?<hr></blockquote>
Excellent analogy.
<strong>SPJ
But we both know that if Ol' Johnson gives $500K a year to the college, his boy is going to get no matter how qualified he is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
debateable...
some colleges (harvard) have such a gread endowmant they dont need to water down their applicant pool to get $500000 a year
The test is whether they receive federal funds, which all good private schools, like Yale and Harvard, do. They get tons of money in federal grants. (I think. I could be wrong about that.)<hr></blockquote>
Yer not wrong. I'd wager nearly all private institutions get Federal financing. Federal money was, for instance, the wedge used to get e.g., Brown University to fund men and women's sports teams equally (Title IX).
MIT's a good example of a private institution practically built with Federal (research) dollars.
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Timo ]</p>
debateable...
some colleges (harvard) have such a gread endowmant they dont need to water down their applicant pool to get $500000 a year<hr></blockquote>
Don't count on it. An amusing parlor game is to figure out just how much money you'd have to give e.g. Harvard to change the name to e.g. Paul University. The number may be in the billions, but there is a number.
<strong>
Care to prove your assertion? When other concepts are proven to be unscientific I am sure you are the first one willing to show them the door. Why should this be any different?
It also shows how limited people's understanding of race is and how they are now starting to intermix race and culture to accomplish political objectives instead of simply ridding the word of racism.
Hispanice for example isn't a race yet people are asked if they happen to be it.
Antiquated non-scientific thinking gave us this past. The same thinking even when reversed should not be expected to give us our future.
As for the future, the change it represents is coming whether you care to accept it or not. In California everyone is such a mish-mash of everything that it gets silly to try to track it.
If I take a child who is black and hispanic are they bi-racial? What about black and asian? How about hispanic and asian? How about italian, mexican and filipino?
The idiocy of this perspective is insane. It is like the deep south again. You folks see someone like Tiger Woods who describes himself as Caucasian, Indian, Black and Asian and you have the good'ol one drop rule making him black in your minds.
The future is coming. It doesn't have races. Tough if you don't like it.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
You talk about current thinking being antiquidated but base whatever you're saying on something that may or may not happen in the future. That doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. But that little spiel will do nothing for minorities right now. And that's the way you want it.
<strong>Why is legacy admissions harder to get rid of than race-based admissions? They would be stopped in exactly the same way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In this particular case it is as easy to get rid of as Affirmative Action. I believe in this case the ethnicity of someone can receive up to 20 points while being a legacy receives 6 or something like that.
I would gladly tell them to toss that 6 points as well however that isn't what the school is being sued over. (This really shows the insanity of writing policy via lawsuits but that is another thread I suppose.)
However that is this particular instance. As was mentioned when someone can call someone's dad. When someone can pull a lever not even related to an official process that is much harder to prove.
As I mentioned Colin Hanks just happens to get a movie deal. Tori Spelling just happens to land parts on her dad's shows. Lil'Bow Wow gets heavily promoted and gee just happens to be related to Snoop Dogg.
How do you prove this sort of thing or basically how do you stop a parent or family member from helping someone else? I think it is pretty much impossible and either way shouldn't be used to justify another wrong.
Nick
He could be very insulted by that, as would I.
I'd hate to think that my personal opinions and beliefs that race should become LESS of a factor (and instead you're judged more on your character, work ethic, grades, employer evaluations, ideas, drive and will to succeed, etc.) automatically links an unsavory name or image to me.
Isn't right to assume people who are opposed to AA are doing it out of bigoted meanness and less-than-honorable intentions. Maybe they simply don't believe or support it for the reasons talked about...and if those reasons don't sit well with your take on it, that's still not a good reason to imply that "how someone wants it".
Last time I checked, Ward Connerly was black. And Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell and Armstrong Williams. And none of them are too crazy about AA.
<strong>Last time I checked, Ward Connerly was black. And Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell and Armstrong Williams. And none of them are too crazy about AA. </strong><hr></blockquote>
How about Condi & Colin?
<strong>
You talk about current thinking being antiquidated but base whatever you're saying on something that may or may not happen in the future. That doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. But that little spiel will do nothing for minorities right now. And that's the way you want it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What doesn't make sense? That people will continue to love and reproduce with whomever they want to?
And as for helping minorities, I'll have you know that in California I happen to be a minority. Since whites are lumped together (but not hispanics, Indians and other groups who are caucasian) I am one of the 45% of Californians who happen to be "white." (even though I am Irish, English, German and Italian which would make me non-white by Aryan racist standards)
Since I am also male and we are about 47% of that 45% that means I look like 21% of the population in the state in which I live.
To say I would go around wishing ill will on 53-79% percent of the population is ridiculous and shows your limited understanding. To think I could somehow even control 79% of the population gives me far to much credit. (Why would I need laws, I must have superpowers) It also shows you would rather call people a racist than try to support your limited thinking since it is logically inconsistant and unscientific.
Just because you endorse diversity doesn't mean you experience it. Trying to put silly little labels on people limits their thinking and likely limits their future because all they will be concentrating on is who their parents loved in the past.
Suppose you married that girlfriend of yours Shawn. She was labeled asian but likely has a cultural background from one particular asian country or perhaps even more. She is already bi-cultural eitherway because she lives in the U.S. (heck she was likely born here)
Finally what is your own background? It is likely from multiple countries as well. What they heck are you going to call your kids? What are you going to do when they come home with a boyfriend or girlfriend who has an equally diverse background? What would you call grandkids?
You might have to wait 20-30 years to see this back east but in California it has already been happening for years. Perhaps in a generaltion the rest of the country might be 45% white (by antiquated measurements again) but it is that way in California today.
I think a future free of labels is beautiful. You can sit there with your one drop thinking and go burn some crosses or something.
Nick
<strong>
How about Condi & Colin?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know. Ask them.
I'm not 100% certain on their take on it because I don't really pay much attention to them, nor have I read articles by or about them as much as I have Keyes, Williams, Sowell, etc.
I believe Powell supports it. Not sure about Ms. Rice. Don't know that much about her at all, to be honest.
But I also don't know what the big brouhaha and hype is about Colin Powell, especially among Republicans. It seems that the idiots in the party who decide this sort of thing were so hard-up to woo him to their side that they never stopped to look that he's not very conservative on many issues.
I think he's more like a Democrat on social/cultural issues.
I've not quite been able to figure that one out yet. Republicans strained their backs to bring him on board and give him a prominent place in the part and he doesn't seem to possess 1/10 the charisma, intelligence and passion that Keyes does. Keyes, if anything, is probably TOO conservative for the GOP leadership's tastes.
How's THAT for irony?
<strong>Yeah, I get what your saying. But if Affirmative Action goes away, how else will minorities advance? It's a proven fact that college enrollment drops significantly. It's just not time for it to go. So that's why I question the motives of those who want to remove it so quickly. Even Mr. Keyes....</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is a proven fact where? Because some liberal columnist repeated it until it was true?
Besides are you more interested in admission rates or graduation rates.
In California when they implemented color-blind admission for UC and CSU schools the number of black and hispanic applicants admitted did drop...at UCLA and UC Berkley. However they were the most elite UC schools. The overall level of minorities admitted stayed the same. Instead they were routed to campuses where the student ability was similar (regardless of race) and flourished. The graduation rates (which is what it really is all about isn't it) are higher than ever.
You could admit more of whatever group, but the point really is are they going to be able to compete and graduate. I myself (being the Shawn labeled racist that I am) went to a state school and did well. Perhaps I could have gone to a more prestigious school but since no one in my family had ever been to college, I didn't even know the criteria for applying to them. (I did take the SAT's and apply on time because of thoughtful caring adults but they weren't going with me to Long Beach)
Say I had gone somewhere most expensive and prestigious. Perhaps I would have simply been buried by the shear inability to compete, not on an intellectual level, but on a financial, and social level.
I already encountered when I did go to college (You learned your music at a PUBLIC SCHOOL where are your years of private lessons and summer music camps?) and while I was able to overcome it there, I certainly couldn't have done that at a 25k+ a year school or a school in say the top 1% of schools. The gap would have been too large.
We make these sort of decisions all the time. People decide to go to a school where they might get attention instead of being just another number. In sports they might go where they can start instead of sitting on the bench. You go where you can press your advantages into more opportunities. If you go somewhere where you are at a total disadvantage then the rate of failure is very high and that isn't because of racism. It is because of reality.
Nick
<strong>Yeah, I get what your saying. But if Affirmative Action goes away, how else will minorities advance...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't know.
How about: Stay in school? Take school seriously? Don't buy into the bullshit that being able to read, count and speak well is somehow "acting white"? Don't knock up several women and father four children by the time your reach 21? And if you're a woman, don't put your legs in the air for every sweet-talking, promise-making Romeo who comes into your life? If you do want to do the sex thing, then - at the very least - take precautions so you don't have to be a mother or father at 16? Develop a work ethic and a sense of right and wrong? Don't base your life on dead rappers and thuggish pro athletes? Don't get involved in selling crack in the neighborhood? Don't make "joining a gang at 12 years old" number one on life's big "to do list"? Don't pick up a gun and try to cultivate the image of a gangsta bad-ass? Don't attach unrealistic glamor to the whole "thug life" scene, jail, having a record, etc. Get a job and work so you don't have the time - between work and school - to get out there and fück your life up like so many have done over the years?
It's amazing the amount of trouble and grief you can probably avoid in life when you're occupied with school and a job. You simply don't have time to engage in all the nonsense above...not if you want a better life for yourself.
I don't know. There are any number of things that pop into my mind, right off the bat! EVERY thing I listed above is VOLUNTARY or is able to be done or not done by the person.
It's choices and deciding that "yeah, maybe I'll get called names and maybe even endure the occasional ass-beating...but I'm NOT going to give in and go down that road. I've seen it destroy too many lives of those around me. I'm BETTER than that low-rent bullshit!"
Basically, the same way lots of people do, Shawn. I'm not rich and I certainly had (nor have) any connections. Fear of getting a spanking, combined with not wanting to disappoint or let down my parents and grandparents, kept me pretty grounded and out of trouble.
Yeah, I'm white. But I'd like to think that some things are kinda universal and apply no matter what.
And if you don't do it for the reasons I did (if you're from a horrible, broken home situation or whatever), then that's even MORE reason to simply do it for yourself, I would think.
You'd want to bust your ass to get the grades and knowledge necessary to carry you out of a miserable, dead-end life.
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
<strong>Taking away AA is not going to solve anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But REPLACING AA with something more fundamental would be better.
Why do you (US in general) try to iron out differences relatively late in a persons life by introducing new differencemaking methods when you could have avoided much of the differences in the early periode of the childs life? We know alot about what social factors that desides the life chances of people. Why not use that knowledge actively?
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
<strong>
Well, I don't know.
How about: Stay in school? Take school seriously? Don't buy into the bullshit that being able to read, count and speak well is somehow "acting white"? Exercise some control and common sense and don't fück everyone that comes into your life and have - or father - 4 children by the time you turn 21? If you do decide to screw a lot, take precautions and be smart? Develop a work ethic and a sense of right and wrong? Don't base your life on dead rappers and thuggish pro athletes? Don't get involved in selling crack in the neighborhood? Don't make "joining a gang at 12 years old" number one on life's big "to do list"? Don't pick up a gun and try to cultivate the image of a gangsta bad-ass? Don't attach unrealistic glamor to the whole "thug life" scene, jail, having a record, etc. Get a job and work so you don't have the time - between work and school - to get out there and fück your life up?
I don't know. There are any number of things that pop into my mind, right off the bat! EVERY thing I listed above is VOLUNTARY or is able to be done or not done by the person.
It's choices and deciding that "yeah, maybe I'll get called names and maybe even endure the occasional ass-beating...but I'm NOT going to give in and go down that road. I've seen it destroy too many lives of those around me. I'm BETTER than that low-rent bullshit!"
Basically, the same way lots of people do, Shawn. I'm not rich and I certainly had (nor have) any connections. Fear of getting a spanking, combined with not wanting to disappoint or let down my parents and grandparents, kept me pretty grounded and out of trouble.
Yeah, I'm white. But I'd like to think that some things are kinda universal and apply no matter what.
And if you don't do it for the reasons I did (if you're from a horrible, broken home situation or whatever), then that's even MORE reason to simply do it for yourself, I would think.
You'd want to bust your ass to get the grades and knowledge necessary to carry you out of a miserable, dead-end life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right in that we need statistics to back up what we're saying since that's how the conversation evolved. Okay.
EDIT: I'll be back later because I have Moliére to read. Plus my posts have been too short. I feel kind of bad about it. Okay carry on!
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Damn "refresh" button...
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Trumptman,
You're right in that we need statistics to back up what we're saying since that's how the conversation evolved. Okay.
EDIT: I'll be back later because I have Moliére to read. Plus my posts have been too short. I feel kind of bad about it. Okay carry on!
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ask and you shall receive...
ENROLLMENT OF MINORITIES BACK UP IN CALIFORNIA
By V. Dion Haynes
Tribune staff reporter
April 6, 2001
LOS ANGELES -- Admissions of blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans at the University of California have returned to nearly the same levels they were before a statewide ballot initiative forced the university system to abandon affirmative-action programs four years ago.
Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans comprise 18.6 percent of the freshmen admitted to the 10 schools in the University of California
system for the fall 2001 class, up from 17.6 percent in 2000. The groups represented 18.8 percent of the students admitted to the freshman class in fall 1997, the last year the university was allowed to use race and gender as factors in selecting students.
Overall freshman admission rose by 10 percent, a result of a boom in the population of teenagers and young adults. Among other groups, admission
of whites rose by 9.2 percent and Asians 8.7 percent.
But university officials, reporting the figures this week, mainly attribute the minority gains to several new programs: investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve public schools in poor neighborhoods; outreach to high schools that do not traditionally send many students to the University of California; the automatic admission
of students who rank in the top 4 percent of every state high school; and a scholarship for high school students who graduate with at least a
B average.
Nevertheless, the number of minority students admitted to the system's prestigious Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses, though growing, still
lags behind that from 1997.
At Berkeley, 1,303 underrepresented minorities were admitted for the fall 2001 freshman class, up from 1,169 in 2000. At UCLA, the number rose to 1,521 from 1,449. That compares with 1997 admission figures of 1,778 for Berkeley and 2,010 for UCLA.
"The university should be pleased with the direction of the numbers, but there is still more work to do," said Warren Fox, executive director of the California PostSecondary Education Commission.
"It's really a remarkable turnaround in a short period," said Ward Connerly, the University of California regent who led efforts to abolish
affirmative action at the school and throughout the state. "It really proves that black and Latino kids do not need preferences to get to the
university."
Also, the number of underrepresented minorities who end up actually enrolling has risen over the past few years, according to university officials.
The Board of Regents approved a measure in 1995 to stop using race and gender in admissions by fall 1998. California voters in 1996 approved Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action statewide.
University officials said they think initial anger has subsided over the measures, which contributed to a decrease in minority enrollment.
The University of California's minority enrollment has been closely watched as other post-secondary schools and courts across the nation debate whether to dismantle other affirmative-action programs.
A federal judge in Michigan last week ruled that a preference program at the University of Michigan Law School was unconstitutional. Observers
think either that case or lawsuits targeting similar admissions policies at the University of Washington and the University of Georgia could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the merits of such programs.
Nick