Just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on the subject. Personally, I think its a racist program that has kept some very smart white students out of good schools in favor of their "less advantage minority" classmates. I personally have been screwed by this program, as I was rejected by my top choice school but a classmate of mine got in.  Now don't all start flaming and calling me a racist, hear me out.

GPA: Mine, 3.7. His, 3.3

SAT scores: Mine, 660 Verbal, 800 math. His, 600 verbal 650 math.

Extracurricular Activities: Mine- Boy Scouts (eagle scout and assistant scoutmaster), marching band (vice president), jazz band, concert choir (soloist), acapella group, men's choir, science league(state champ), math league (team high scorer), drama club (5 leading roles), intermural baseball. His........ none

Interview: Mine- I went and was told by the interviewer that I would make an "excellent fit at MIT". His- He didn't go to his interview...

Skin Color: Mine- White, His- Black

Now what you must understand is that he does not come from some "poor, disadvantaged minority family living in the ghetto." No, he comes from a middle class family living in new jersey suburbia. And as for being a minority, my school was 50% black, 20% white, and 30% hispanic, asian, and indian. So don't give me that minority crap.

I was pretty bummed when I got rejected, but when I found out that he stole my space, I was furious. And he knew why he got in. He even said to me, "Come on, you know you never really had a chance." F that buddy, I'm better and you know it... 

Anyone else feel strongly about Affirmative Action, either for or against it? If you're just gonna post flaming stuff or meaningless statement, don't bother. Please.

I agree with you, I hate racists and racism in any form, and so they need to judge people by there abilities not color. I hate it when people accuse people who share this opinion of being racists because we are not, I want all people who have the ability to go to college to go, but only if they do have the ability.

Hades wrote: It isnt always about your GPA...

Yes, I know that. But when your GPA is better, SAT's are higher, have a plethera of extracurricular activities (compared to none), and actually show up to your interview, I think that would start to matter.

Yeah your right it is stupid.  Its just like getting a job.  The more qualified white guy wont get the job if they need "minority".  Hopefully one day all this will be changed and equal will really mean equal. 

Until then I'll just reek in the benefits.

JK

Hades wrote: Now you know to apply to more than one college at a time... Try looking into a community college to get your start.

This was 3 years ago. I did apply to a bunch more schools, and got accepted into all of them. I had to take my second choice, but I'm very happy with where I'm at. I'm now at RPI, one of the top engineering schools in the country. Like I said, I'm happy with it, I just wish that I wasn't forced out of my top choice by racism.

okay wait...you are **edited**ing about something that happened three years ago?  Wow...I feel sorry for anyone who has ever wronged you.

Now, about the affermative action thing...its total bull**edited**.  It doesn't matter what skin color you are, if youre black and smarter than a white guy than you should go to college, if you're white and smarter than a black guy then that guy should go to college...

Hades wrote: Racism, rriigghhtt.... Good job spotting that one, Enstien.

Well, I can tell which way you lean...

rockerdoode wrote: okay wait...you are **edited**ing about something that happened three years ago?  Wow...I feel sorry for anyone who has ever wronged you.

nah, I just wanted to bring up the subject of racism, I mean affirmative action. In order to explain why I feel so strongly about it, I needed to tell the whole story. Its not like I sit at home every night plotting the doom of this kid. I stopped doing that months ago....

MattyJ wrote: rockerdoode wrote: okay wait...you are **edited**ing about something that happened three years ago?  Wow...I feel sorry for anyone who has ever wronged you. nah, I just wanted to bring up the subject of racism, I mean affirmative action. In order to explain why I feel so strongly about it, I needed to tell the whole story. Its not like I sit at home every night plotting the doom of this kid. I stopped doing that months ago....

hahaha

we were talking about that in class today it is mess up and there realy isnt much you can do i feel sorry for u

You guys throw around the phrase "affirmative action" like it is a simple thing.  Saying that you are for or against "affirmative action" makes about as much sense as being for or against "gun control" or "war" or "tort reform".

Affirmative action is a collection of complex policies and practices.  It might be helpful to specify what exactly you are for or against.

But as to the situation at hand - there are a couple of questions.  The first one is "why do you believe that race was the deciding factor, or even a significant factor?"

Hades wrote: Relevant Quote wrote: The Argument: There are several factors that a college should take into account when considering applicants, such as grades, test scores, and extra-curricular achievements. However, an applicant's race is not a legitimate factor to take into consideration because it is outside of the student's control. It is impossible for a college to consider every aspect of a student's background when making admissions decisions. Why focus on race in particular, as opposed to the thousands of other aspects that differentiate students from one another? The Response: The purpose of the college admissions process is not to reward merit but to get the best overall student body. Insofar as affirmative action increases the diversity of the student community, it makes for a better learning environment.

My point exactly. College admissions should be awarding merit. And by doing so, it creates diversity. Under affirmative action, you create diversity by creating a dichotomy: those who deserve to be at the school and those who don't. Diversity shouldn't matter in a learning environment. A physics class of white students learns the same physics as a class of black students, or a class of diverse students. The material doesn't change when you introduce diversity.

If agree that racial background should not be allowed on any application, be it a job app, a college app, or a credit card app. It doesn't matter. We are all people. Martin Luther King said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." He was right! Martin Luther King is hailed as someone who fought for the rights of black people but that is not entirely true. He was fighting for the rights of ALL people. A society without color.

Clark Kent wrote: You guys throw around the phrase "affirmative action" like it is a simple thing.  Saying that you are for or against "affirmative action" makes about as much sense as being for or against "gun control" or "war" or "tort reform". Affirmative action is a collection of complex policies and practices.  It might be helpful to specify what exactly you are for or against. But as to the situation at hand - there are a couple of questions.  The first one is "why do you believe that race was the deciding factor, or even a significant factor?"

No, I am against Affirmative Action. Period. You are trying to make affirmative action look like more than it is to make our arguments seem invalid. Affirmative Action is a policy to give the less advantaged "equal" chances to advance in their academic and career paths. At the time of its conception, it was needed because the minorities were not being given equal chances. Many gifted minorities were not given the oppurtunity to advance because of their race. But it is a different time now. Now, the "minorities" are given greater chances to succeed, but not because of their merits but because of their race. Many people, myself included, no longer have an equal chance at advancement because we are not diverse enough. Thats where the problem lies.

As for my case, if you knew the guy, you would understand. Why do I think race was a deciding factor? Because of all the qualities a school of MIT's caliber looks for, he had none of them. He showed no regard for others, as he didn't even have the common courtesy to show up to his interview. And his grades and academic qualities were subpar for a school of such high prestige. He would have been fine for a state school or even some of the less intense private schools. But since he is black, his mediocracy gets promoted to make it look like "his qualities may not be very high, but he is a disadvantaged minority so he never had the chance to do any better..." When the fact is that he just isn't a good enough student.

Clark Kent wrote: You guys throw around the phrase "affirmative action" like it is a simple thing.  Saying that you are for or against "affirmative action" makes about as much sense as being for or against "gun control" or "war" or "tort reform". Affirmative action is a collection of complex policies and practices.  It might be helpful to specify what exactly you are for or against. But as to the situation at hand - there are a couple of questions.  The first one is "why do you believe that race was the deciding factor, or even a significant factor?"

I will specify exactly what I am against: Affirmative Action. Using color or ethnic background as a basis for judgement, no matter what the end result, is wrong. True equality can only be achieved when all people are treated equally. All AA does is perpetuate discrimination in one form or another.

Also, if he surpassed the other student in all areas, and the other student did not even bother showing up for the interview, please tell me what else it could be other than racial favoritism.

Hades wrote: Who says they should award merit? And how sticking that the nations top geeks/nerds in one school creating a diverse mix? All you have is a bunch of top geeks and nerds. The learning that takes place in college isnt just from a text book... MLK also had a nation blind to status, class, and intelligence in mind, not just color.

God you're ignorant... Just because someone is smart, doesn't make them a geek/nerd. And to counter your question, why should dumb black kids get into a good school while smart white kids are rejected?

Do you honestly think that if AA is stopped, there will be no more minorities in good schools? If you do, you're either dumb or a racist. There are many minorities who can move forward based on their own merits. Let us all earn what we can because of who we are, not what we look like.

And your statement about MLK just strengthens my point, so thanks!

MattyJ wrote: No, I am against Affirmative Action. Period.

You really should define what you are against...

You are trying to make affirmative action look like more than it is to make our arguments seem invalid.

I am simply attempting to define what we are talking about.  I have not attempted to invalidate anybody's arguments.  Hard to do, since no arguments have been made yet, only vague statements of general opinion.

Affirmative Action is a policy to give the less advantaged "equal" chances to advance in their academic and career paths.

Ah - a definition.  :)

Using this (rather narrow) definition of AA, I gather that you are against giving "compensating" advantages to disadvantaged folk.  Period.

Is that an accurate statement of your position?

At the time of its conception, it was needed because the minorities were not being given equal chances. Many gifted minorities were not given the oppurtunity to advance because of their race. But it is a different time now.

From this I gather that you aren't really against AA at all (necessarily).  You are simply saying that it is misapplied because minorities are not disadvantaged?

That is quite different from saying that you are against helping the disadvantaged.

I am confused as to exactly what your position is.

As for my case, if you knew the guy, you would understand. Why do I think race was a deciding factor? [various reasons] ... But since he is black, his mediocracy gets promoted to make it look like "his qualities may not be very high, but he is a disadvantaged minority so he never had the chance to do any better..." When the fact is that he just isn't a good enough student.

So to paraphrase:  "I can't understand why he got accepted and I didn't, therefore it must have been race."

It may have been race.  It very well may have been.  But from your post you honestly don't have a single reason to think so, other than that you can't think of any other reason.  That is hardly proof of anything.

whoknowswho wrote: I will specify exactly what I am against: Affirmative Action. Using color or ethnic background as a basis for judgement, no matter what the end result, is wrong. True equality can only be achieved when all people are treated equally. All AA does is perpetuate discrimination in one form or another.

A noble perspective. 

Now, what if I told you that, left to their own devices, employers and schools would tend to hire and promote fewer blacks and women in positions of responsibility?  That, all other things being equal, blacks and women are in fact being discriminated against today?  Should we still have color/gender-blind policies, knowing that the result will be anything but color/gender-blind?

Also, if he surpassed the other student in all areas, and the other student did not even bother showing up for the interview, please tell me what else it could be other than racial favoritism.

Well, I didn't see the applications, so I don't know.  But I do know first hand that schools and employers consider a broader variety of elements than you might expect.

And, of course, there is diversity - and not necessarily ethnic diversity.  The resume mattyj described for himself sounded, to be honest, just like the kind of resume that MIT gets delivered by the truckload.  Sometimes being a little different goes a long way.  I know a guy who went to Yale Divinity School.  He wrote his application with a crayon, and the applications people counted that in his favor.  You just never know.  It might have been race.  But it is premature for us to conclude that it was.

Here's an example of diversity-based affirmative action, along the lines of what Hades was describing:

I am organizing a lunch with coworkers.  Just a social thing.  After inviting the three people in neighboring offices I realize it will be all guys.  Stag lunches are boring, so I invite a couple of women from a different floor instead of inviting some more guys from my area.

I selected women over men, specifically based on their gender, because I believe that their presence will make our lunch more enjoyable for everybody, even though in the process I stiffed some equally- or better-qualified male lunchers.

Was I wrong to do so?

DBibeau855 wrote: See, this makes sense, why give a spot to an inferior student when his parents make a net income of 200,000 a year. The white student who from a single parent home. Should be considered over the other student. Thats the way it should if we are going to have an affirmitive action program.

No Im  saying an Affermitive Action type policy. Even though the kid from a single parent home making 18k a year may have a lower GPA or less credentials than the rich boy whos parents can buy the kids way into college, the Colleges should have to go look for the worse off kid.

Same as todays system but put in income insted of race.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Im all for Affirmitave Action like programs, but I think they should base them off of household income, not race or skin color. Its no longer an issue of black and white, its an issue of rich and poor. This is all just my opinion.

Would it change your mind if I could show that, even after factoring in socio-economic status, race is a very significant factor?

DBibeau855 wrote: See, this makes sense, why give a spot to an inferior student when his parents make a net income of 200,000 a year. The white student who from a single parent home. Should be considered over the other student. Thats the way it should if we are going to have an affirmitive action program.

And I think you will find that most schools do in fact consider modest beginnings as a positive when evaluating applicants.

What you are describing is, in my experience, exactly what happens.

DBibeau855 wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: DBibeau855 wrote: See, this makes sense, why give a spot to an inferior student when his parents make a net income of 200,000 a year. The white student who from a single parent home. Should be considered over the other student. Thats the way it should if we are going to have an affirmitive action program. No Im saying an Affermitive Action type policy. Even though the kid from a single parent home making 18k a year may have a lower GPA or less credentials than the rich boy whos parents can buy the kids way into college, the Colleges should have to go look for the worse off kid. Same as todays system but put in income insted of race. Why, tuition is a fact of life, it helps pay for the student services, salaries and campus up keep. If we just said screw the rich kid whos parents "buy" their way in, wich every family does. The college would just decline.

So now your point is that monitary asistance programs are bad?

DBibeau855 wrote: I know the FAFSA forms. Federal tuition aid and tuition programs, it is a very large desiding factor, that and extra caricular activities and GPA and all that. And RACE.

Yep - race is considered, in some form of other, by many/most schools and employers, but alongside other factors.  In the infamous Michigan case, for instance, ethnic minority status got fewer points than veteran status or legacy status...

Dune wrote: I love the pic Hades. I absolutely agree. People do not understand affirmative action, they only hear that it is against white people.

I was waiting for Dune to chime in with his "non-liberals just follow what they hear and can't think for themselves" posting. You are blind to the fact that affirmative action is not needed in this era, and are too worried that the people you are trying to help might not want your help.

Nobody here has given me a reason why we should keep affirmative action, you just all say "its needed."

MattyJ wrote: Nobody here has given me a reason why we should keep affirmative action, you just all say "its needed."

Not true.

I am still waiting for a clarification of your position.  Is it your position that (A) we shouldn't help the disadvantaged, or (B) blacks aren't disadvantaged?

Two different positions, both of which you have alluded to.

It's a little bit of both really. First and foremost, the situation of racial equality is much improved now from its state when AA was started. Blacks are no longer disadvantaged because of their race. Sure, there are some low-income black families but there are just as many (or more) low-income white families, and the white families don't fall under AA. In that respect, AA should be abolished as everyone has, socially at least, an even chance for career or academic advancement.

As for helping the disadvantaged, I'm all for helping a smart kid who has had a rough life pay for college. I think its needed. Many a smart mind has been lost on the streets of the country because they had no money. However, I am totally against paying for a dumb kid to go to college just because his family has no money. He doesn't deserve to be there, I don't want to pay for him. Do you think that we should?

Hades wrote: MattyJ wrote: Blacks are no longer disadvantaged because of their race. AHAHAHAHAHAHA, Rrriiiiiggggghhhhhtttttt.... /me wipes tears from laughing so hard.

They aren't... Get over it...

Hades wrote: MattyJ wrote: However, I am totally against paying for a dumb kid to go to college just because his family has no money. He doesn't deserve to be there, I don't want to pay for him. Do you think that we should? One would think at it is the better move to send the dumb kid to college so he/she/it could get smarter.

If we smarten up all the dumb kids of the country, there will be nobody left to do the blue collar jobs... Now that just won't work...

MattyJ wrote: ... the situation of racial equality is much improved now from its state when AA was started.

Certainly true.

Blacks are no longer disadvantaged because of their race.

The answer here is "depends" - disadvantaged how?  True - blacks are no longer likely to get beaten for looking at a white woman, and even get to drink from white water fountains.

But - even after adjusting for SES, blacks are more likely to attend inferior schools, are less likely to attend college, will earn less money, more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, less likely to be promoted into managerial or executive positions, and so forth and so on.

Check the Fortune 500 - how many of those CEOs are black?  On demographics alone, you would expect about 50.

And, statistics aside, I see the disadvantaging of blacks every day.  It is more subtle than before, and perhaps even less intentional, but it is very much there.  Are there some instances where blacks are favored?  Certainly.  But on the whole...   not even close.

Sure, there are some low-income black families but there are just as many (or more) low-income white families

True only numerically.  Proportionally, blacks are MUCH more likely to be poor than whites.

... and the white families don't fall under AA.

Again, depends on what you mean by AA.  For college admissions, most schools WILL consider positively modest beginnings, and this will favor the poor whites.  There is this myth of AA as "must admit all blacks" - that just isn't the case.  College admission people consider a wide variety of factors, many of which have nothing to do with grades, and many of which are completely beyond the control of the applicant.  Race is only one of those, and only a small one at that.

As for helping the disadvantaged, I'm all for helping a smart kid who has had a rough life pay for college. I think its needed. Many a smart mind has been lost on the streets of the country because they had no money.

How about helping the smart/poor kid who is having a hard time getting into college because his school is really crappy (so his GPA is bad) and he can't afford SAT prep classes (so his SAT scores are bad).  Paying for college is one thing - getting in is another, and college admissions are clearly biased against the poor and, statistically, against minorities.

However, I am totally against paying for a dumb kid to go to college just because his family has no money. He doesn't deserve to be there, I don't want to pay for him. Do you think that we should?

I don't think dumb people should be in college either.  That helps nobody.  But that is not the purpose of AA.  You are falling for the mythical AA of "must get all dumb blacks in college".  That's not what it is.

MattyJ wrote: If we smarten up all the dumb kids of the country, there will be nobody left to do the blue collar jobs... Now that just won't work...

I presume this is a joke...

I'm at work now, so I really can't respond to all of your BS, I mean comments...  So I'll just do a quick statement.

There aren't a lot of black CEO's because they haven't worked there way up yet. The CEO's now have been in industry for many years, back at a time when racism did dictate job advancement. In 5-10 years, you will see a change in this, guaranteed. As for your view of how AA works, your'e wrong. Its not that they look at an app, see a person is black, and let them in. Its that minorities have to meet less vigerous standards to gain admission.

As for the smart/poor kid in a crappy high school, his GPA should be skyrocketing. If your school is crappy, the curriculum is easier, meaning smart kids get better grades.

College admissions are not biased against minorities.. because of AA. Thats the whole bloody point of it...

And no, it wasn't a joke. I still want people around to wash my car, cut my grass, shine my shoes, and serve me my big mac!!

MattyJ wrote: As for your view of how AA works, your'e wrong. Its not that they look at an app, see a person is black, and let them in. Its that minorities have to meet less vigerous standards to gain admission.

No, not exactly. Keeping spots open for minorities without disadvantaging whites is how it works. You have a distorted view of it.

Yes it is very needed, minorities are very disadvantaged in society, still today.

PlentifulBalls wrote: Its not fair to anyone really. IIt insults african-americansbecause its like they can't get into college without the extra help of affirmative action.

That is a decent argument, but primarily because of the perception problems it creates.  This is clearly a legitimate concern, as evidenced by this thread.

But again, we shouldn't overstate what AA does - it is just a tweak, not an all or nothing.  The Michigan case is a good example - I believe they awarded 5 points to under-represented ethnic groups, and 5 points for foreign nationals, but 10 points to legacy candidates, and 10 points to veterans.  SAT scores and GPAs still dwarfed those numbers.  The ethnic factor was very small.

I believe that there is an incorrect perception as to how much AA actually matters in the college application process.

MattyJ wrote: ...I really can't respond to all of your BS, I mean comments...

Now was that really necessary?  I do believe that I have been quite courteous in this discussion.

There aren't a lot of black CEO's because they haven't worked there way up yet. The CEO's now have been in industry for many years, back at a time when racism did dictate job advancement. In 5-10 years, you will see a change in this, guaranteed.

Yes and no.  You certainly are correct that there is a cohort effect.  But AA has been in effect for a long time.  The current number of black CEOs in the Fortune 500 is, I believe, 8.  Statistically, that should be 50.  Is it your contention that ALL of that very significant skew is the result of discrimination from days of yore? 

You further say that in 5-10 years we will see those numbers even out.  If so, why is it that upper middle management in American business is still largely white and male?

Blacks are behind in law school graduation - but further behind yet in law firm advancement.  Blacks, at every educational level and at every social level, make LESS than white people.  Black college grads make less than white college grads.  Black doctors make less than white doctors.  Black high school grads make less than white high school grads.

Is there some cohort effect contributing to the skew at the highest level?  Sure.  But to write off all current skew as cohort effect is not correct.

As for your view of how AA works, your'e wrong. Its not that they look at an app, see a person is black, and let them in. Its that minorities have to meet less vigerous standards to gain admission.

Yes and no.  By that definition, veterans have to meet less rigorous standards, as do people from rural areas, people from under-represented states, people who can run a good 40, legacy candidates, and people with a zillion other features.  A great way to get admitted to the University of Wisconsin, for instance, is to be from New York.

Candidates are evaluated along many axes - you are singling out one of those and declaring that this one axis is not appropriate.  What is your basis for that determination?

As for the smart/poor kid in a crappy high school, his GPA should be skyrocketing. If your school is crappy, the curriculum is easier, meaning smart kids get better grades.

Spoken like somebody who has never been in a crappy school.  You are WAY wrong.  By that theory, rich people would be paying extra money to put their kids in bad schools.

Clark Kent wrote:

The answer here is "depends" - disadvantaged how?  True - blacks are no longer likely to get beaten for looking at a white woman, and even get to drink from white water fountains.

But - even after adjusting for SES, blacks are more likely to attend inferior schools, are less likely to attend college, will earn less money, more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, less likely to be promoted into managerial or executive positions, and so forth and so on.

Check the Fortune 500 - how many of those CEOs are black?  On demographics alone, you would expect about 50.

And, statistics aside, I see the disadvantaging of blacks every day.  It is more subtle than before, and perhaps even less intentional, but it is very much there.  Are there some instances where blacks are favored?  Certainly.  But on the whole...   not even close.

Sure, there are some low-income black families but there are just as many (or more) low-income white families

True only numerically.  Proportionally, blacks are MUCH more likely to be poor than whites.

... and the white families don't fall under AA.

Again, depends on what you mean by AA.  For college admissions, most schools WILL consider positively modest beginnings, and this will favor the poor whites.  There is this myth of AA as "must admit all blacks" - that just isn't the case.  College admission people consider a wide variety of factors, many of which have nothing to do with grades, and many of which are completely beyond the control of the applicant.  Race is only one of those, and only a small one at that.

As for helping the disadvantaged, I'm all for helping a smart kid who has had a rough life pay for college. I think its needed. Many a smart mind has been lost on the streets of the country because they had no money.

How about helping the smart/poor kid who is having a hard time getting into college because his school is really crappy (so his GPA is bad) and he can't afford SAT prep classes (so his SAT scores are bad).  Paying for college is one thing - getting in is another, and college admissions are clearly biased against the poor and, statistically, against minorities.

However, I am totally against paying for a dumb kid to go to college just because his family has no money. He doesn't deserve to be there, I don't want to pay for him. Do you think that we should?

I don't think dumb people should be in college either.  That helps nobody.  But that is not the purpose of AA.  You are falling for the mythical AA of "must get all dumb blacks in college".  That's not what it is.

[/QUOTE]

 You my friend, are an idiot.  Black people get the same that whites get or better.  Coming from experience (which I can assume you have none of because of the way you approach the problem) many black people don't get into college, don't get good grades, don't get good jobs, and generaly do worse in life because they don't want to.  All of the black people at my school that will end up not going to college, going to Grambling State University (all black school near my hometown), or get worse jobs than me are either special ed (very few) or just don't feel like doing the work because thier parents never taught them to do their homework or study.  I have to go, I'll finish this later.

hashi2008 wrote:  You my friend, are an idiot.  Black people get the same that whites get or better.  Coming from experience (which I can assume you have none of because of the way you approach the problem) many black people don't get into college, don't get good grades, don't get good jobs, and generaly do worse in life because they don't want to.  All of the black people at my school that will end up not going to college, going to Grambling State University (all black school near my hometown), or get worse jobs than me are either special ed (very few) or just don't feel like doing the work because thier parents never taught them to do their homework or study.  I have to go, I'll finish this later.

And there, in a nutshell, is a very compelling argument for why affirmative action is still very much needed today.

Thank you.

Kayback wrote: However when it is applied INCORECTLY, it is nothing more than a form or racism.

Very difficult to disagree with that.  I have seen an unfortunate amount of "bad" AA, which is a disservice to everybody.

Clark Kent wrote: hashi2008 wrote:  You my friend, are an idiot.  Black people get the same that whites get or better.  Coming from experience (which I can assume you have none of because of the way you approach the problem) many black people don't get into college, don't get good grades, don't get good jobs, and generaly do worse in life because they don't want to.  All of the black people at my school that will end up not going to college, going to Grambling State University (all black school near my hometown), or get worse jobs than me are either special ed (very few) or just don't feel like doing the work because thier parents never taught them to do their homework or study.  I have to go, I'll finish this later. And there, in a nutshell, is a very compelling argument for why affirmative action is still very much needed today. Thank you.

Wow, that was so stereotypical and unbelievably ignorant. Clark is right, this type of idiotic belief system is exactly why we still need AA today.

Darur wrote: I am sorry, I didnt bother to read the whole thread, but has anyone read up on what happens to most people that get accepted because of Affermative Action?  A lot of them end up dropping out or flunking out because they are not prepared for it.

Studies like that are a bit suspect, since it is impossible in most situations to determine who was accepted to a school "because" of affirmative action.  College admissions just don't work that way in the overwhelming majority of schools.  Nobody keeps separate track of "AA candidates" in any school that I know.

But, your point is still well taken.  To the extent that AA results in somebody going to college who was underprepared, that also does not do anybody any good.

ya i think it all right in like the 1940's when black's were abused. but now its plain crap

Hades wrote: [QUOTE=MattyJ]Blacks are no longer disadvantaged because of their race.

Then explain to me the inordinate number of African American communities where people live at or below the poverty line. Sure, there are white communities like that as well, but not nearly as many.

The truth of the matter is that racism STILL shows through, and the concept of AA was an attempt to move away from this problem. Unfortunately, its become a bastardized program.

Dune, the "young people" comment wasn't directed specifically at you, I was including all of america. Too many high school and college students side with the liberals because they believe that the liberals are fighting for them. However, I believe the majority of liberals have their own agenda; the creation of a quasi-socialst state. Now, slap the name socialist on a group and it dies, but mask socialist beliefs to make them appear as democratic and people (especially young people) will eat them up.

MattyJ wrote: Clark and Dune, let me guess. You guys are the "vote down the party line" kinda people, aren't you?   An election comes along, and you just vote liberal (socialist?)

It is staggering just how wrong you are.  Not surprising, but staggering.  I laugh at your wrongness.

Your conclusion speaks volumes of your own prejudice.  Anybody who disagrees with you must be one of them there librals.

I say this because that is how you argue. Be it affirmative action or the war in Iraq, you say whatever John Kerry or Rev. Al Sharpton says

Again, you are so incredibly wrong that I wonder if you even read my posts.  I would laugh at your wrongness again, but that was so last paragraph.

... make up statistics that have no backing

I take umbrage to that.  My posts are made in front of the computer.  Almost without fail, I research every single post before posting.  Just about every statistic I post is pulled from fresh research.  I challenge you to prove any of my factual claims wrong.  I may be occasionally misinformed or simply wrong, but I do not make up facts or statistics.

Clark, you claim that I didn't experience a crappy high school? How do you know that? Do you even know what HS I went to? Nope, you don't.

I do not know what school you attended.  But based simply on your stated view that a poor school would improve the GPA for a good student, I conclude that you have no understanding of what a truly bad school does to a student.  A truly bad school makes everybody a bad student.  A bad school filled with mostly unmotivated students, unmotivated teachers, hallway violence and poverty throughout does not help the smart/motivated students - it holds them back.  It hinders their education, and it brings down their SAT scores.  This is obvious to anybody who has spent any time in these schools.  Your suggestion that bad schools are somehow good for smart students is completely laughable.

Here's another suggestion - you think know what I am arguing, but you are wrong.  At this stage, you don't even know what my point is, even though I have stated it clearly.  You are so bogged down in your prejudice that you can't see what is right in front of you.

MattyJ wrote: Once again, another post where a lot was written but nothing was said.

What didn't I say?  I refuted your post line by line.

Please tell me anything you would like me to address, and I will address it.

What is the facist side of my politics?

As for socialism, it goes against my better judgement. Socialists believe that we can live in a classless society where everybody is equal. Things like socialize medecine are things socialists use to sell their views. But if I work hard, I want to be rewarded for it. I want my 4 years of undergrad and my 2 years of grad work to mean something. When I work hard, I want to know that I am making more than if I did nothing with my life and worked at McDonalds.

Now before you all jump on my back, I am not saying that people who don't go to college are failures at life. I'm just saying that hard work deserves merit and a socialist state would not give that merit.

MattyJ wrote: Socialists believe that we can live in a classless society where everybody is equal.

Errr...  No.

Socialism is an economic term while communism is a political term. Just like america has a capatalist economy and a republic for its political organization.  Socialism is government control of the economy. If one cannot control their own business, they are in the same boat as someone who has no business. Therefore, they remove any type of economic class. It is not an overgeneralization, you just don't understand the difference. I'll speak slower next time...

Actually, Matty is right - if this were the 1860s.  In its original form, "socialism" intended the economic equality of all peoples, sometimes with full joint ownership.

This, however, is the 21st Century.  Socialism means something else.  Moreover, socialism is not a monolithic idea (much like affirmative action is not a monolithic idea).

The US, for instance, has many socialist features - social security, medicare, the whole New Deal - very socialist.  Federal highways paid for by taxes - socialist.  Housing subsidies - socialist.  Progressive income tax - socialist.

Many countries considered socialist cannot be classified as communist, so calling them equal is wrong. However, in socialism, the government does not fully control every aspect of production, as in some European countries, and our neighbors up north.

I challenge anybody to find any country that has no socialist features.  (There may be some small island countries that come close)

Socialism is not an all or nothing deal.  As with all things, there are degrees and different versions.

But can we get back to affirmative action?  As much fun as libral-bashing is, I felt we were making some progress with AA.

Thanks Clark, you've proven my point by saying exactly what you're supposed to say! Social Security, Medicare, Federal highways, housing subsidies.... these are all used as examples by socialists to try and prove that socialism works.

Just because an economy has what you call "socialist features" does not mean that its socialism or that socialism works. For instance, take all those things you mentioned, but add federal control of private businesses. Add the part that takes away my ability to sell my doo-dads for $1.50 when my competitor only sells them for $1.40. Oh yeah, and take away any marketing or advertising jobs, because they won't be needed. There's your socialism.

The only gripes I have ever had with AA is not the program itself, because the program is good. Sometimes, very rarely, it can get abused, but it's not enough to throw the program away.

MattyJ wrote: Thanks Clark, you've proven my point by saying exactly what you're supposed to say! Social Security, Medicare, Federal highways, housing subsidies.... these are all used as examples by socialists to try and prove that socialism works. Just because an economy has what you call "socialist features" does not mean that its socialism or that socialism works. For instance, take all those things you mentioned, but add federal control of private businesses. Add the part that takes away my ability to sell my doo-dads for $1.50 when my competitor only sells them for $1.40. Oh yeah, and take away any marketing or advertising jobs, because they won't be needed. There's your socialism.

Who do you think you are arguing with?

Have I said anything in favor of socialism?

How is it "my" socialism?

What the heck are you talking about?

EDIT - ok, so I got sucked into another socialism exchange, but that was too bizarre to let go.

Clark Kent wrote: Who do you think you are arguing with?

I think I'm arguing with a 15-year old kid who thinks he knows more than he actually does. A kid who will read one dictionary defenition of socialism and think he's an expert. A kid who's never taken a political science or economics class in his life, but tries to correct people that have. Pretty much, thats who I think I'm arguing with.

Dune wrote: Wow.....very far off.

Nope, I think not...

No offense, but I wouldn't take your word about who you are or who clark is. You would agree with him if he said he was Richard Nixon, just to achieve "solidarity"

As for Clark, his birthday is listed as October 9, 1990, which would make him a 15 year old kid. Most 15 year olds, especially ones in crappy high schools that Clark claims to know so much about, don't take too many polysci or econ classes. Now of course, he could be lying about his birthdate, which wouldn't be to hard to believe. He may have just been "misinfomed" by one of his sources...

Ahh another liberal fall back.. "Fox news is so right wing." Give it a rest guys...

Oh, and I don't claim superiority, at least not in this subject. But I don't need to be lectured by some punk kid who doesn't know what he's talking about, but just regurgitates what mommy and daddy say at the dinner table. And I'll notice you didn't refute my claims from my last post. Good form my friend.

Refute what? All you did was claim Clark's age as to his level of knowledge? Seeing as how while in college I knew many people that didn't have the mental capacity that Clark does. I fall in line because I know he researches his things. He doesn't make wildly racist or illogical assumptions about another race of people. You claim that because you take some classes at your college that you are above him, and me as well. It's funny. You place too much reliance on your own ability to learn and too little on his and mine. However, no bother.

He SAYS he researches things. Do you honestly believe that to be true? Damn, why did I even ask that? I know the answer is "You bet he's right!" You are right about one thing, however. It is funny. This keeps me and my co-workers amused.