Stupid New Florida Law

[Guest ant_7000]

This is why im a democrat, im not for racial profiling or any other racist policies thats why im pro AA, im pro choice (Moderate), and for welfare to an extent, not for school vouchers, and for Public Funding to poor schools and also for the environment, Im not tree hugger or anything like that I just feel that we need to look after our resources better.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Affirmative action is a racist policy. Welfare discriminates against people who work in favour of those who don't. School vouchers devolve choice from the state to the people and are therefore intrinsically good.

[Guest ant_7000]

No, AA is not a racist policy its way for minorities who are qualified that might not be excepted because of their race, AA its a way to get your foot in the door. I said that im for welfare to a certain extent and that is that they should work but still be able to receive government assistance (temporarily deal) if their job is low paying enough that they can't pay some or most of their bills, If it was up to me it would be just for young mothers. Vouchers is a good idea, but you can't give that to a small amount of gifted students at poor schools then screw the rest of the average students who are willing to learn.

[Guest danielisthor]

No, AA is not a racist policy its way for minorities who are qualified that might not be excepted because of their race, AA its a way to get your foot in the door. I said that im for welfare to a certain extent and that is that they should work but still be able to receive government assistance (temporarily deal) if their job is low paying enough that they can't pay some or most of their bills, If it was up to me it would be just for young mothers. Vouchers is a good idea, but you can't give that to a small amount of gifted students at poor schools then screw the rest of the average students who are willing to learn.

AA is a racist policy, which works against the majority of the people here in the United States, which happen to be white.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

AA is... [a] way for minorities who are qualified that might not be excepted because of their race

Affirmative action is the opposite of race-blind admissions. It predicates acceptance on race. The abominable institution of standards which give higher priority to students with dysfunctional parents is a direct parallel. Achievement is the only acceptable basis for granting or withholding a job or a school position.

 

if their job is low paying enough that they can't pay some or most of their bills

The solution to this is called "living within your means," and without government assistance it becomes fairly popular.

 

you can't [vouchers] to a small amount of gifted students at poor schools then screw the rest of the average students

"Gifted" students are also called "hard-working" by those who accept responsibility for their own successes and failures. If you want to learn, you don't need the government to help you. Libraries are free and they're open to everyone. Go read, become "gifted," and go to a better school.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Well, I agree that gifted kids need to go to a good school, considering actual gifted dropout rate is (Warning: The following Statistics come from somewhere, but I'm not sure where I found them. Take them with a grain of proverbial salt) something like 5 times as much compared to non gifted kids, and the artistically gifted dropout rate is something silly like 80%, and the main cause is (supposedly) inflexible and poor teachers. However, I am also in favor of everyone else going to a good school, 'cause I bet the whole inflexible poor teachers are a big factor for everyone else, too. So, yea, I think that if kids are going to a consistently failing school, if the family's want to move their kids, I'm all for it. We need good teachers to get some of these kids motivated to go to the library, 'cause let's face it, a lot of them won't make it on their own.

 

And AA IS DISCRIMINATION!!! But I have nothing to add on that one.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

I tend to dislike the notion of affirmative action, because as a person who's supposedly classified as gifted, I've busted my ass studying, working, and consuming knowledge as best I can over the course of my years. Whatever my parents or I did to make me "gifted" required a lot of effort, and even the humanitarian stick-up-for-the-little-guy in me says "Hey, screw off. I've busted my ass and I deserve to be rewarded. What did you do?" Affirmative action is an out that doesn't take care of the problem itself; it offers an escape that says "all right, fine...you didn't do well enough to succeed, but it's all right! You can jump to the head of the line anyway." I'm aware that there are places and people for whom few opportunities exist, but damn, you have to go for those opportunities. Giving hand-outs isn't going to help a thing. Actually putting money into a sub-par school system to improve it, sure. Telling the products of a sub-par school system to go to the head of the class regardless of inadequacies...no.

 

Take my opinion with as many grains of salt as you like, because as an upper middle-class white male, I'm exactly the kind of person affirmative action hurts and never helps.

 

I'd support affirmative action if it gave to those in trouble without taking from those who have worked hard to make themselves well-off in one way or another. That, of course, simply doesn't work. Thumbs down.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'm a white female Republican and I've never given a moment's thought to money. Affirmative action neither helps nor hurts me to any degree. It's still wrong, and EMP is exactly right about the "gifted" crap. I attended numerous CTY programmes throughout junior high and high school, but I worked to get the offer in the first place and I worked once I was there. It had nothing to do with Daddy's money. I had at least a dozen friends who were in the same boat (well, yacht, really) and they didn't get to go. Why? Because they didn't work. You're an "average student?" Afraid of getting left behind? Fucking work harder. The people at the top of the class shouldn't be forced back just so you can feel good about sitting on your lazy ass. That's called equality of results, not equality of opportunity; it's a socialist idea, and it's wrong.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

There are some people who, while gifted in many academic and artistic areas, fail to find their interest piqued by the low-level, conformist, indoctrination of America's current school system.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

There are some people who, while gifted in many academic and artistic areas, fail to find their interest piqued by the low-level, conformist, indoctrination of America's current school system.

Yeah. I guess I was lucky in that I went to an elementary school that had "enrichment" programs, and that afterwards, the family set out to actually find a *gifted* school.

 

End story, I ended up a public school for the 'gifted,' whose only admittance requirement was passing certain standardized tests. No tuitition payments, nothing special--just a school funded by the county's tax dollars, like any other. It was a fabulous institution, and it disappoints me that there's only something like a dozen such schools in the nation. When you have teachers that are actually certified to teach gifted students, there's not much of a conflict.

 

I wish there were more such schools, or more importantly, more such teachers who had to go through extra levels of certification to know how to deal with growing, developing minds. Whether a person is genetically gifted or not, a capable teacher will be able to pull thoughts and ideas out of them much more effectively than someone without the knowledge or technique. As we've discussed on another thread, though, the standards for teaching in America are pretty low. Things like this make me consider wanting to head into education and try to fashion some type of reform...but then I think of how impossible it seems.

 

Eh. Perhaps still worth a shot. My education was valuable and I think a bit special, and more people deserve the chance.

[Guest ant_7000]

Well, Im a middle class black guy so I don't if I have actually benefitted from AA, But as I said it should be in place for discrimination purposes towards "QUALIFIED" minorities. In a perfect world AA wouldn't exist, as a minority I look at AA as way to level the playing field it keeps QUALIFIED minorities from getting passed over for jobs to non Qualified whites, lets be honest racism still exist. I got a question for the so-called upper class people here if you're smart and rich enough to get in just about any school in the country why are you guys so against AA? I would figure you could afford it and not really care about AA. Hell, I even mention this before Bush Jr benefitted from AA because he was C student in High School and it wasn't for his father's alumni status and money there's no chance in hell he could've got into Yale. Hell, some you guys might have benefitted from that example. As for education I feel that if people are willing to learn they deserve a quality education, but it should be more funding to the poor schools and getting quality teachers in those poor schools, and I know how it is going to a poor high school for 2 years it was ridiculous.

[Guest EricMM]

Bush Jr benefitted from AA

 

 

Listen bucko. You know what groups have been prosecuted in America? Almost everyone except the WASPs. But last I heard you couldn't get into a great school because you were Irish. You can't get into a better school because you're Italian, Chinese, or any other white or asian minority, regardless of whether or not your race has been discriminated against previously.

 

Silver Spring MD is one of the most diverse areas I know. My schools have been very diverse, ~35% black, ~30% white, ~20% latino, and ~15% asian. Probably some other too. The point is, my whole life, I never saw any of my school mates picked over any other one, based on race. Never. Ever. Don't you think we would have picked up on such blatent racism? We didn't. The only reason that the magnet programs were prodominantly white/asian was because those kids posted better grades. But we all went to the same schools. (Except the Potomac kids) But noone was held back by the schools.

 

The black and hispanic kids in my school posted signifigantly lower SAT scores, grades, and graduating averages than the whites and asians. One could definitely say that many of the latino kids were having troubles with english as a second language, but so were many of the asian kids. Me and my friend tried to figure this out (in the 12th grade). He said that his (black) family was simply culturally different than white kids'. There was less emphasis on school. I dunno, that's just what he said. But if thats true, that's not the white kids' fault, and it's not the states' responsability.

 

Show me good grades and you'll go to a good school. I think that's safe to say that that statement is true today. Maybe it wasn't true 30 years ago. But it's true now. So tell me again why we need reverse racism.

[Guest spliffstar]

In regards to those who are taking an oppositional stance to affirmative action, it's interesting to note that our President wouldn't have been admitted to Yale if it wasn't for a similar policy that affords educational opportunity on a basis other than the student's merit.

 

Simply put, W got into Yale because his daddy is Yale legacy. Despite the fact that this sort of admissions policy isn't considered to be affirmative action by most, it allows a student to be admitted to school without earning it on their own. Most of the people that oppose affirmative action in the traditional sense, do so because they claim it is unfair to reward people for something other than achievement. Admissions to schools based on legacy do the EXACT same thing.

 

The only difference being that an admission based on legacy rewards those that already come from a position of privilege, rather than those that are coming from a disadvantage position in society.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Most of the people that oppose affirmative action in the traditional sense, do so because they claim it is unfair to reward people for something other than achievement. Admissions to schools based on legacy do the EXACT same thing.

Well, yeah. Legacy admissions are also pretty damn stupid. I thought that was a given.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yeah, what EMP said.

 

Re: the President

Interesting, spliffstar, the way you've determined the reason for an individual's admission to a school - without, I'll bet, knowing either individual or school terribly well. How do you know that the legacy was the deciding factor?

[Guest spliffstar]

By his own admission, George W Bush, was only an average student. This has been cited in numerous stories on the president. One example can be found at:

 

http://www.broadsideonline.com/election2k/...0200/bush.shtml

 

It mentions that while at Phillips Academy, "He was an average student who never made the honor roll."

 

While I will confess to not knowing the specific standards Yale has for admission, I don't think it would be wrong to deduce that Yale does not make it a policy to admit "average" students.

 

If you feel that legacy admissions are pretty damn stupid, I'm not going to argue with that point. The main reason I mentioned this was simply to point out that a lot of the standards of merit that are applied to issues such as affirmative action and social welfare are rarely applied in a uniform manner.

 

The Republican party, for example, opposes excessive social welare, but doesn't take a stance against coorporate welfare.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The President received some "average" grades at a time when it was still possible to receive average grades.

I do think legacy admissions are unfair, but I don't think you're justified in pointing fingers at specific people. Interviews, essays, extracurricular activities, standardised tests, and many other factors besides grades and legacies can decide whether or not someone is admitted to a particular school.

[Guest spliffstar]

I do realize that other factors besdes grades are considered when an admissions board decides whether to accept an applicant to their university.

 

Bush was active in extracurricular activities while in high school, may have had a great interview with representatives of the Yale Admissions office, and may have done well on his SATs(I recall an article that suggests this was not the case, but I won't dwell on it as I cannot cite the source). Regardless of these other factors, Bush was admitted to Yale without hesitation as he was legacy. He could have been a drooling idiot that blew off his high school education, and he still would have been admitted.

 

To me, this sort of admissions proedure is a greater evil than that brought about by standard "affirmative action." Even if you are admitted into a college because of your race, there are other mitigating factors, and a beneficiary of affirmative action has at least demonstrated some measure of achievement amongst their own race or gender.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Regardless of these other factors, Bush was admitted to Yale without hesitation as he was legacy.  He could have been a drooling idiot that blew off his high school education, and he still would have been admitted.

There is no way you can possibly make this claim unless you happened to be on the admissions board and made the final decision yourself. It is baseless slander predicated on your apparent dislike of the President and nothing more.

 

a beneficiary of affirmative action has at least demonstrated some measure of achievement amongst their own race or gender.

That is not the point. The point is that their NON-merit-based characteristics are used as the deciding factor. That is precisely what you are accusing the Yale admissions board of doing in the case of the President, and whatever the circumstances, that is wrong.

[Guest EricMM]

But Bush is evil and minorities are good, right? Right?

 

See my previous posts *grumble grumble*

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Of course the President is evil. He's a white Christian male.

 

</eyeroll>

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Of course the President is evil. He's male. (Rimshot)

[Guest HecateRose]

Wow, this conversation stalled out once we started saying the president is evil. Let's face it, most politicians are evil, they have to be, it's in their contracts somewhere, I'm sure of it

[Guest spliffstar]

Please explain to me how a hypothetical situation can be considered slanderous. Oh, that's right, it can't.

 

Moving on, the difference between race-based affirmative action and legacy-based afirmative action is that the beneficiaries of race-based affirmative action are at least acheiving at a high level within their racial group. Legacy-based affirmative action allows someone a privileged position that doesn't regard personal acheivement at all. A D-student could get into Yale because of legacy, but the same is not true of race-based AA.

 

Even if that weren't the case, race-based AA at least tries(I'm not saying it acheives this goal) to do something productive: level the playing field of oportunity that has been out oout of balance by centuries of racism. Legacy admissions simply reward the sons and daughters of the rich for being rich.

 

I haven't suggested that AA of any kind is right, but I would think that even the most obtuse conservative could understand my point that one form is worse than the other.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

explain to me how a hypothetical situation can be considered slanderous.

Okay.

Bush was admitted to Yale without hesitation as he was legacy.

This is not a hypothetical. It is a baseless assertion that the President was unqualified for his school and was admitted despite his potential and achievements rather than because of them. You have no evidence to prove it, but you are using the claim to denigrate his character nevertheless.

 

Moving on.

 

I haven't suggested that AA of any kind is right, but I would think that even the most obtuse conservative could understand my point that one form is worse than the other.

Not one person has ever contested this point or said anything to the contrary. We have all agreed from the very beginning that legacy admissions are unfair and discriminatory and have nothing to do with merit, which is the sole basis on which admissions should be considered. It's obvious.

You are manufacturing a nonexistent argument and I can't imagine why, unless it was simply to use the term "obtuse conservative." Well, you've used it. Are you done now? Or would you like to belligerently postulate still more imaginary disagreements in order to "win" them by destroying your own straw men?

 

"THE SKY IS BLUE!"

"Uh... yes, it is."

"NO, THE SKY IS BLUE! I SAID THE SKY IS BLUE!!"

"I heard you. Yes, it is indeed blue."

"NO, YOU OBTUSE CONSERVATIVE! IT'S BLUE!!!"

 

Sheesh.

 

the beneficiaries of race-based affirmative action are at least acheiving at a high level within their racial group

That makes it more offensive, not less. It denigrates an entire group of people instead of just one individual.

[Guest spliffstar]

To begin with, I thought you were referring to the following statement when you posited that I had slandered the president:

 

"He could have been a drooling idiot that blew off his high school education, and he still would have been admitted."

 

That is why I asked how a hypothetical statement could be considered slander.

 

Suggesting that "Bush was admitted to Yale without hesitation as he was legacy," does not insinuate that Bush was unqualified for Yale. Rather, the statement implies that his qualifications didn't matter whether he was under- or over-qualified for Yale.

 

Yale didn't receive Bush's admittedly average transcript and say, "Well, he's grades may not have been Yale material, but he certainly was active in extracurricular activities. Let's schedule an interview with him so we better understand if he warrants admission."

 

What happened went something like this:

 

1. The application arrives.

2. The admissions board realizes that W's father is alumni.

3. The application is stamped accepted.

 

This scenario does not suggest that Bush couldn't have gotten into Yale based on his merits...it says that his merits weren't considered.

 

Previously in this thread, I said that the beneficiary of affirmative action has at least demonstrated some measure of achievement amongst their own race or gender.

 

You responded to that by stating "That is not the point. The point is that their NON-merit-based characteristics are used as the deciding factor. "

 

Same thing as with legacy-admissions, yet when I pointed this out with our President as an example, you accused me of slander.

 

As a brief aside, I am bursting with pleasure at your acknowledgment of my use of the word "obtuse." Please note that I am familiar with a plethora of multi-syllabic words. They include, but are by no means limited to, the following:

 

homologous

dichotomy

hegemony

pontificate

alabaster

burlesque

juxtaposition

quixotic

 

Getting back on track, you state that race-based AA "denigrates an entire group of people instead of just one individual. " Using the same argument, does legacy-based admission denigrate all Yale alumni?

 

Finally, the sky is AZURE!!!

[Guest Cancer Marney]

This scenario does not suggest that Bush couldn't have gotten into Yale based on his merits...it says that his merits weren't considered.

Your scenario is a hypothesis with no credible bearing on any particular person. I am perfectly comfortable with the general application, but I take issue with your insinuation that it happened in precisely this way for one specific person. Leave the names out and I'll let it slide.

 

when I pointed this out with our President as an example, you accused me of slander.

Correct. Don't use a specific person as an example and you are set. Because you cannot claim that it happened in one specific case unless you were on the admissions board - you can only say that it happens within a certain general group. And it does.

 

you state that race-based AA "denigrates an entire group of people instead of just one individual. "  Using the same argument, does legacy-based admission denigrate all Yale alumni?

All Yale alumni who are legacies, yes. Unfairly so.

 

Finally, the sky is AZURE!!!

Sez you, liberal.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Almost the color of a lapis lazuli.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Azure? What about cyan?

 

Kotzenjunge

[Guest J*ingus]

You're all wrong, I just looked at the sky, it's BLACK!