Affirmative Action: Necessary.

[RedSkunk]

"Far more whites have entered the gates of the 10 most elite institutions through 'alumni preference' than the combined numbers of all the Blacks and Chicanos entering through affirmative action."
-- San Francisco Examiner, April 1995

Michigan University --

Affirmative action was under the spotlight recently, when Bush and Co. challenged the affirmative action program at Michigan University. Bush said that, "At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes perspective students, based solely on their race." Unfortunately, Bush once again has failed to grasp the issue at hand.

Firstly, the University of Michigan does not employ any type of quota system. As Bush continues to use the English language, it is obvious that it's not his native tongue.

"Quotas are arbitrary ceilings or rigid and fixed numerical floors. Quotas are typically used to exclude people because they belong to a stigmatized racial or ethnic group."

The University of Michigan uses bonus points to attract certain applicants. For instance, Michigan residents get a 10 point bump, applicants related to alumni get a 5 point edge, scholarship athletes get an additional 20 points. Applicants are also awarded 20 points for: "socio-economic disadvantage" and "underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education."

Notice, that there is no mention of arbitrary limits or glass ceilings. Thus, when Bush lamented over a quota system at Michigan University, he was railing against something non-existent. And even with such a bonus system which includes a certain racial element, Michigan is no where near racial parity. Michigans population is 14% African-American, "The undergraduate college and the law school, the two targets of the lawsuit, are currently 8.4 percent and 6.7 percent African-American. The law school says that without affirmative action the percentage of African Americans and Latinos would drop to 4 percent each."

Now after examining the Michigan University fiasco the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Michigan's system was indeed constitutional), we can move on to affirmative action in general.

[RedSkunk]

The Need for Affirmative Action --

"The Glass Ceiling Commission, headed by Republican Elizabeth Dole, reported in 1995 that even though many minority particularly Asian) workers had higher levels of education and better work credentials than their white counterparts, lesser qualified white males were still being promoted over them. 97% of the sr. managers of the Fortune 1000 Industrial and Fortune 500 companies are white, and 95%+ are male while 57% of the work force are people of color, women, or both. Of the 5% of managers that are women, 5% of that are women of color."

"A study by the Leadership Council on Civil Rights reported that Black youth who've committed a violent crime are 9 times more likely to be sent to prison than white youth who've committed the exact same crime"

"The Department of Justice reports that white college students are the overwhelming majority of drug users and underage drinkers in the USA. Yet Black motorists in NJ are 9 times more likely to be pulled over by cops and have their cars searched for drugs. A Boston Globe investigation found that in Massachusetts Blacks are twice as likely as whites to have their cars searched when stopped by the police. In St. Louis, IL Latinos are 1% of the population yet 40% more likely to be pulled over by cops than whites"

America continues to be a racialized society. One that minorities continue to struggle in to achieve a measure of success comparable to their white peers. A study done by two professors, one from M.I.T. and the other from the University of Chicago, illustrates this point quite effectively:

"To each employer, they submitted two pairs of made-up resumes. One pair of highly qualified candidates and one pair of average candidates. In each pair, one had a "black" name like Tamika or Tyrone and one had a "white" name like Amy or Brad. The professors found that the "white" names were 50 percent more likely to be called for an interview than the "black" names." (Al Franken, Lies & the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Pg. 258-9)

So, there is certainly still a case to be made for affirmative action. Conservative political pundits are adamantly opposed to affirmative action, purportedly because of reverse-rascism. I don't see the real threat, however; the possibility of white males being subjugated anytime soon is pretty remote in my opinion.

Until there is equality, true equality, affirmative action will be required in America's education system. A study by Fannie Mae showed that, "if America had educational equality, African Americans would have two million more high school degrees and two million more college degrees."

[RedSkunk]

Rich-Boy Affirmative Action --

Indeed, what the mainstream, right-leaning media should be focusing on is the type of affirmative action that got Bush into Yale. George W. Bush was able to get a 1206 on his SATs, a respectable score, but nowhere near Yale standards. A score of 1206 is a full 180 points below the median score for Yale. He got through college with a gentleman's C. It doesn't take too much to figure out how he got into Yale (unless your blinded by partisanship, of course): family ties. The Bush name, in other words. Today, the children of alumni are nearly twice as likely to be accepted by Yale as all other applicants. This type of "rich-boy affirmative action" permeates every aspect of American society. Yet, strangely enough, you won't find anything about this in the mainstream media.

To simply pretend discrimination no longer exists is to ignore the growing mountain of evidence that clearly demonstrates discriminatory practices continue unabated. Our failure to adequately address ongoing discrimination is an affront to the very core of our deeply held principles of fairness and equality embodied in the Constitution.
-- Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-Pa)

Congressman Chaka Fattah - White House Wrong on Affirmative Action
The Village Voice: The Court's Big Week: Saving Affirmative Action by Lani Guinier
Focus on Affirmative Action - Volume 17 No. 3 - Rethinking Schools Online
Affirmative Action for Whites
President Bush Discusses Michigan Affirmative Action Case
CNN - Bush Criticizes University 'Quota System' - Jan. 16, 2003
Bush Opposes Affirmative Action. So How Does He Defend The Institutional Favoritism That Got Him Into Yale?

[H-Dawg]

Yeah, its important to introduce all of those articles, because affirmative action can be terribly misunderstood without a thorough discussion of the context and background. This hit particularly home for me, as I just watched "American History X" last night. If you haven't seen it, do! It's about a kid whose fireman father gets shot in a black neighborhood in LA, and so the kid grows up being a neo-nazi. He is very intelligent, but extremely angry, which drives his blind racism. But as the story unfolds, he learns alot of hard lessons about racial hatred. ONe part in the movie shows the father talking about the evils of affirmative action when two black firemen are hired over two white firemen with better test scores. The movie's presentation of both sides of the story, and how rage can blind one to the illogic of discrimination, is done very very well. But you've probably already seen it.

[RedSkunk]

Yeah, I've seen it, great film. Encourage others to see it also.

[bumcheekcity]

I would say 'nice rant' Red Skunk, but it was punctuated, so that was a nice... well, essay. Either way, i can't agree more. In a society in which some people are persecuted, they need protectiong to make them EQUAL to, NOT better than their persecutors, and to give them the chances and help they need to live and work.

[RedSkunk]

I want someone who is against affirmative action to come here and debate me. I'm not going to copy+paste this onto some other thread =P

[stonedpimp69]

At 2/8/04 03:05 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Either way, i can't agree more. In a society in which some people are persecuted,

You mean WERE persecuted dont you?

they need protectiong to make them EQUAL to, NOT better than their persecutors,

HMMMM So let's just take this as a fictional example:
I graduate with an average of 3.7(very high). JOe Shmoe(who is black) graduates with 3.6. Through AA he gets into college Over me. Does that make us equal? Is that fair?

Then. you hire a black man. IT is virtually impossible to fire him, even if he doesn't work well, blah, blah,blah. Because the moment you try he will have your ass in court for racism.

Next: school. you, and some friends(all white) + some joe shmoe(black). Get caught smoking weed/doing anything else which is SERIOUSLY against school rules. ALL of you get caught. You and your friends get In school suspension, the cops get called, drug tests for a while, etc. Joe Shmoe? his parents get called. HE has to talk with the principal for a while. That's IT.(trust me this has happened to me)

And it's not just the whites getting screwed. Indians and Asians are getting shafted as well. The United States Immigration Department only lets in those Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc. that are talented and intelligent. Because of this, most of their kids are talented and intelligent. When a college or employer is faced with a decison between a talented person from china and a talented *insert disadvantaged minority here*, They choose the disadvantaged minority, claiming it gives them ethnic diversity, because there are many less people of that background who can do the job. What rubbish is this? For some reason this reminds me of the Aryan Race. We don't care about the actual 'quality' of our workers and students as long as they fit the 'proper' racial criteria.

Jesus fucking christ...

So.... You see my point dont you? I DARE You tto try to argue against this

lol bum your wish has been granted

[RedSkunk]

At 2/9/04 01:14 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: You mean WERE persecuted dont you?

Are you a minority?

HMMMM So let's just take this as a fictional example:
I graduate with an average of 3.7(very high). JOe Shmoe(who is black) graduates with 3.6. Through AA he gets into college Over me. Does that make us equal? Is that fair?

Look at it this way: Blacks, on average, go to poorer public schools much more than whites. Whites are far more likely to go to private schools. They are also likely to take their SATs two, three, or four times, and keeping the best score. Now you've got some black kid, who was brought up through the public school system, only took his SATs once. Say the black kid gets marginally lower scores, both on his SATs and his GPA, like you said. Now: in this situation, do you think his marginally lower scores mean shit? I personally don't.

Then. you hire a black man. IT is virtually impossible to fire him, even if he doesn't work well, blah, blah,blah. Because the moment you try he will have your ass in court for racism.

Show me some proof. This is just bullshit.

Next: school. you, and some friends(all white) + some joe shmoe(black). Get caught smoking weed/doing anything else which is SERIOUSLY against school rules. ALL of you get caught. You and your friends get In school suspension, the cops get called, drug tests for a while, etc. Joe Shmoe? his parents get called. HE has to talk with the principal for a while. That's IT.(trust me this has happened to me)

This is such utter bullshit. Blacks are sentenced much harsher than whites. This is utter bullshit. I don't give a shit what anecdotal evidence you can pull out of your ass.

And it's not just the whites getting screwed. Indians and Asians are getting shafted as well. The United States Immigration Department only lets in those Indians, Chinese, Japanese, etc. that are talented and intelligent. Because of this, most of their kids are talented and intelligent. When a college or employer is faced with a decison between a talented person from china and a talented *insert disadvantaged minority here*, They choose the disadvantaged minority, claiming it gives them ethnic diversity, because there are many less people of that background who can do the job.

What are you babbling about? Chinese are a minority in the US. Look at the Michagan bonus system. It says underrepresented minority. Duh!

So.... You see my point dont you? I DARE You tto try to argue against this

No, I don't see your point, because you raised no serious, debatable points.

[bumcheekcity]

Thankyou, Red_Skunk, for posting exactly what I would have done. Curb the language a bit though, me old bean...

[stonedpimp69]

You'll just have to take my word for the drugs in school thing. and trust me, he was just as stoned as the rest of us.

Now here's another example I know of:
John Glad works at UDC at the linguistics faculty(I think he's a professor, but I'm not sure.(University od the District of Columbia(He also happens to be a friend of my fathers)). He has worked there many many years. MULTIPLE times, when it came to give a pay raise, to ONE person, either him, or his black colleague, co professor,(who btw, graduated with a worse grade in his day, and hasn't worked at aforemention university as long) got it OVER John. I have no proof, so you'll have to take my word for this.

Please, can you tell me how this is fair?

[RedSkunk]

At 2/9/04 05:19 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: two examples
Please, can you tell me how this is fair?

I'm not saying those two examples are fair, but they aren't examples of affirmative action either. They're examples of... I dunno, "liberal guilt" or something, perpetrated by dumbshits.

Affirmative action isn't about not arresting black potheads.
Affirmative action isn't about unfairly rewarding someone.

It's about giving people the benefit of the doubt, say, during higher education, and trying to end / lessen the entire subconscious racism in our society. Because it does exist. Look at the study I cited.

[stonedpimp69]

Time for my counter rant:

Let's start with this:
"TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION SEC. 201.

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
(http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm)

If "All persons" are already being "entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities" in every public establishment inside the United States, why does Affirmative Action exist? Public establishments does include universities, doesn't it? It states that it's purpose is to 'ensure equal opportunity'. Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not working? Are we still denying blacks jobs and university schooling? I don't think so.

The ethnicities that benefit from this practice claim it's because they are 'disadvantaged'. Is this another word for stupid? If you're not intelligent enough to get into a school on your own accord, then you shouldn't get into that school, it's as simple as that. No race is smarter or more dumb than any other, so why are some acting like they are?

The best argument for Affirmative Action is that people come from areas in the country in which the education is poor, the standard of living is terrible, and everyone is living in poverty. They claim that Affirmative Action gives these people a fair chance at getting good jobs and attending good universities.

Well I pose this question: are the minorities favored by Affirmative Action the only people that live in these districts? Are the whites who grow up in 'disadvantaged' areas helped towards getting jobs and getting into schools by Affirmative Action?

Of course the answer is no. Affirmative Action is entirely based on race. Where you live doesn't mean shit, so this argument is void.

I'm lazy this made me waste 10 minutes(I dunno I didn't time, it's just a number of the top of my head) of my life, and I want them not to be lost in vain :P come up with a counter argument.

[JoS]

At 2/9/04 12:33 PM, red_skunk wrote: I want someone who is against affirmative action to come here and debate me. I'm not going to copy+paste this onto some other thread =P

Bring it on.

Affirmative action is basically just discrimination with a PC name. Is it that white male's fault that a hundred years ago black people or women were denied jobs? And isnt it in the best interest of a company/organization to hire the ebst person for the job, nota minority? We watched a video in law class about affirmative action in the Toronto firedepartment, and they actually lowered the requirement on test scores for women and visable minorties so more of them qualified. IN addition whern out of the 20 they were going to hire only 3 were women or minorties they cut several of the white males who scored higher and replaced them with minorties and women. That my friends is discrimination. If you are going to institute it against males then it shoudl be put in place in areas dominated by women or minorties too. between 10 and 20% of nursing students are male, but not even 10% of nurses hired are males (my friend TA's nurses this is how I know this). So maybe hospitals should be forced to hire more male nurses. What about Convience stores or taxi services, most people are of a visable minority, maybe we shoudl force them to hire white males. Affirmative action doesnt make the playiing field equal it gives minorties and women a distinct advantage. and it is true, not in all cases but in some cases when a minortiy is fired they will pull the race card and sue the employer. aaffirmative action is not a step forawrd, but a step backwards. And think of the firedepartment, which would you rather the best person doing that job or a minority who got a lower score, or a women who isnt physicallable to complete the job, say caring your huge as out of a burning building. And when I use this example people alwayss pull out the well they dont work alone some one else can do it. So basically then that means one fire fighter doesnt have to be able to do everything. Well what if the male fire fighter in the building were to collapse and needed to be carried out quickly before the building falls down, does the women have to run outside to get someone else to do it, leave them there or what? You are only as strong as your weakest link. And before someone else says it, there are women who can do the job as well as a man, let them in, but dont insult them by lowering the bar for them to get in.

[stonedpimp69]

At 2/10/04 10:25 AM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote:

At 2/9/04 12:33 PM, red_skunk wrote: I want someone who is against affirmative action to come here and debate me. I'm not going to copy+paste this onto some other thread =P

I think bum actually said it

Bring it on.

:bullseye

Couldn't agree more, Couldn't agree more. *looks over mine, and rugbymacdaddys rant and tries to decide which one I agree more with*

[Adept-Omega]

At 2/9/04 02:27 PM, red_skunk wrote: Look at it this way: Blacks, on average, go to poorer public schools much more than whites. Whites are far more likely to go to private schools. They are also likely to take their SATs two, three, or four times, and keeping the best score. Now you've got some black kid, who was brought up through the public school system, only took his SATs once. Say the black kid gets marginally lower scores, both on his SATs and his GPA, like you said. Now: in this situation, do you think his marginally lower scores mean shit? I personally don't.

You bring up a good point... however, unfortunately, in doing so, you debunk your own case.

How so? You state that the true motive is based off of family/regional income and, therefor, based off of inherent wealth advantages. In my opinion -- if the true, honest motive were opportunity, it would be based off of family income, not skin color.

What are you going to say to poor little white Timmy who grew up in the same conditions? "Oh, I'm sorry, Timmy... you look too much like the rich kids, so you don't count."

If these are the true motives, then the system needs to change to reflect that. Please remember that equality is a double-edged sword -- If you want the advantages of equality, then you must pay the prices of it as well.

This is such utter bullshit. Blacks are sentenced much harsher than whites. This is utter bullshit. I don't give a shit what anecdotal evidence you can pull out of your ass.

Statistically speaking, you're right. I don't get what stoner's getting at here, other than maybe having a personal counterexample. Even so, there are always exceptions to generalities.

I wrote a long winded rant on affirmative action once in my Livejournal... let's see if I can find it.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/10/04 10:07 AM, stonedpimp69 wrote: Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not working? Are we still denying blacks jobs and university schooling? I don't think so.

Look at the study I cited. In two different cities, they found 1,250 job offers. They filed four applications to each job, two highly skilled, two medicore skilled. One highly skilled and one medicore skilled had 'white' names, the other two had 'black' names. Why were the white applicants chosen 50% more of the time?

The best argument for Affirmative Action is that people come from areas in the country in which the education is poor, the standard of living
Are the whites who grow up in 'disadvantaged' areas helped towards getting jobs and getting into schools by Affirmative Action?

Yes. In the case of Michigan University, you also get 'bonus points' depending on economic issues.

Of course the answer is no. Affirmative Action is entirely based on race. Where you live doesn't mean shit, so this argument is void.

No, it's not.

I have class soon, but I'll respond to each reply if I don't get around to it. I like this topic, because it is hard to argue, and I finally don't agree with everyone either.

[RedSkunk]

I totally forgot when my class started, missed it. Bleh. Oh well.

At 2/10/04 10:25 AM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: And isnt it in the best interest of a company/organization to hire the ebst person for the job, nota minority?

You would think. But why is it then that, "... white men are only 43 percent of the Fortune 2000 work force, [but] they hold 95 percent of the senior management jobs"(1)? Now, in this instance, you can't say it's not because there aren't women who want these positions (like, say the firefighter stuff, get to that later). And they're qualified also. I read somewhere awhile back that there are more women earning college degrees than men (in the US at least). I don't remember the exact stats, but.

We watched a video in law class about affirmative action in the Toronto firedepartment, and they actually lowered the requirement on test scores for women and visable minorties so more of them qualified. IN addition whern out of the 20 they were going to hire only 3 were women or minorties they cut several of the white males who scored higher and replaced them with minorties and women. That my friends is discrimination.

I looked up the Tornto Fire Department thing. There seems to be news flurries in '96 and '99. Now, here's how it breaks down: in '99, 90% of the firefighters in that department where white males.(2) To be fair, "84 per cent of all applicants were white and male; 91 per cent of those applicants who passed the initial screening test were white and male"(3)

But you point out that they lowered requirements to let in minorities and women. That's true: the Toronto fire department had required a "16" on it's tests, and when people asked for more women on the workforce, they tried to up the requirement to "18." The problem is, in the majority of municipalities in the surrounding area, the requirement is "13." Strange, I think, that a 13 is fine for everywhere else, but then Toronto wants to up their requirements even more after there was a push to get more women on the force. (2)

Now, you raise the point that they should hire the most qualified. I agree, to an extent. But, keep in mind, not everyone has to be a huge brute, running around in the middle of an inferno, carrying fat (in this case, Canadians) out of their houses. Hell, I very strongly doubt that 90% of the force does that on a regular basis.

But yes, they want to keep the force strong, right? Why then, did "the union resist attempts to regularly test incumbent firefighters to ensure they were indeed as strong and fit as the women the artificially high standards barred." (2)? If they were in fact worried about keeping a healthy task force, shouldn't they be regularly testing the older firemen?

If you are going to institute it against males then it shoudl be put in place in areas dominated by women or minorties too. between 10 and 20% of nursing students are male, but not even 10% of nurses hired are males (my friend TA's nurses this is how I know this). So maybe hospitals should be forced to hire more male nurses.

Yes, I'd like to see more male nurses. Thats part of the problem too.

What about Convience stores or taxi services, most people are of a visable minority, maybe we shoudl force them to hire white males.

AFAIK, private businesses with a small amount of workers are exempted from affirmative action laws, etc. Don't quote me there though.

and it is true, not in all cases but in some cases when a minortiy is fired they will pull the race card and sue the employer.

And if it is an unfair case, I, naturally, don't support it.

which would you rather the best person doing that job or a minority who got a lower score, or a women who isnt physicallable to complete the job, say caring your huge as out of a burning building.

I doubt they need 90% of the department to carry people.

does the women have to run outside to get someone else to do it, leave them there or what? You are only as strong as your weakest link.

All of the surrounding municipalities get by fine with lower requirements. Again, strange they up'ed the reqs when there was a push for more women in the workforce (in '96, I believe. It was lowered to the standard 13 in '99). This is, by the way, out of 20 possible points. (2)

---

My answered got shorter and less researched, or I run the danger of missing my next class.

1. http://www.aauwofva.org/myth.htm
2. http://web.lexis-nexis.com/uni...ce54f6bb038fe81a7ad08e77b0c3e8
3. http://web.lexis-nexis.com/uni...71fd340d438a7894f186772d743f29

[RedSkunk]

At 2/10/04 12:00 PM, Adept_Omega wrote: You state that the true motive is based off of family/regional income and, therefor, based off of inherent wealth advantages. In my opinion -- if the true, honest motive were opportunity, it would be based off of family income, not skin color.

In the case of education, ie: Michigan University, income is also a factor. 20 points for "socio-economic disadvantage." I believe that inherent wealth advantages are only one part of the overall equation, underlying racism and biotry being the other large problem that affirmative action attempts to resolve.

[stonedpimp69]

At 2/7/04 07:32 PM, red_skunk wrote:

"Quotas are arbitrary ceilings or rigid and fixed numerical floors. Quotas are typically used to exclude people because they belong to a stigmatized racial or ethnic group."

The University of Michigan uses bonus points to attract certain applicants. For instance, Michigan residents get a 10 point bump, applicants related to alumni get a 5 point edge, scholarship athletes get an additional 20 points. Applicants are also awarded 20 points for: "socio-economic disadvantage" and "underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education."

Umm.. No glass ceiling I'll have to agree, and I can't say anything against the "socio economic clause". however "underrepresented racial-ethnic minority"??? So wait.... because Joe knows 19 point less then me(I take it this is a lot... 19 points should be anyway) but because he is black, he gets in becuase of those 20 point over me? Aybody in their right minds, with any sense of fairness, should resent this.

:"The undergraduate college and the law school, the two targets of the lawsuit, are currently 8.4 percent and 6.7 percent African-American. The law school says that without affirmative action the percentage of African Americans and Latinos would drop to 4 percent each."

And that means RIGHTFULLY it should drop to four percent. If only four percent of whites, were smart enough to be admitted, i'd say the same thing.

Now after examining the Michigan University fiasco the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Michigan's system was indeed constitutional), we can move on to affirmative action in general.

that proves the supreme court is racist against whites. Plain and simple.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/10/04 05:40 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: however "underrepresented racial-ethnic minority"??? So wait.... because Joe knows 19 point less then me(I take it this is a lot... 19 points should be anyway) but because he is black, he gets in becuase of those 20 point over me?

The CNN page I have on hand lists a few criteria for points. Such as:
Geography
10 points - Michigan Resident
6 points - underrepresented Michigan county
2 points - underrepresented state
Alumni
4 points - "legacy" (parents, step-parents)
1 point - other (grandparents, siblings, spouses)
Misc.
5 points - men in nursing
20 points - scholarship athlete
20 points - provost's discretion

It's a 150 point total system. CNN sucks, and did not provide all of the details, I'm going to find everything after I post this, and update you to how much grades, etc., count. So, using your logic, nothing should count besides scholastic records, correct?

And that means RIGHTFULLY it should drop to four percent. If only four percent of whites, were smart enough to be admitted, i'd say the same thing.

Intelligence is not the determining factor when talking about dismal amounts of minority students in higher education.

that proves the supreme court is racist against whites. Plain and simple.

No, it doesn't. It proves that I'm not the only one who doesn't believe affirmative action is an innately wrong action. Since the Supreme Court does not have to worry about elections or pleasing a constituency, they can decide a matter entirely objectively.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/10/04 06:07 PM, red_skunk wrote: It's a 150 point total system. CNN sucks, and did not provide all of the details, I'm going to find everything after I post this, and update you to how much grades, etc., count.

Here's the full spreadsheet. Note that a 4.0GPA is worth 80 points. A 2.0 is worth 20 points. A perfect SAT score is worth 12, Etc., etc.

http://www.cir-usa.org/Images/mich_index.gif

I'd like to note that I'm not necessarily defending Michigans spreadsheet, I'm defending their right to put "socio-economic disadvantage" and "underrepresented racial/ethnic minority identification or education" in the process.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/10/04 06:13 PM, red_skunk wrote: Here's the full spreadsheet. Note that a 4.0GPA is worth 80 points. A 2.0 is worth 20 points. A perfect SAT score is worth 12, Etc., etc.

Further note that of all the "other factors," the maximum you can achieve is 40. If you were a michigan resident with an athletic scholarship, and the provost liked you, the underrepresented minority bit wouldn't even play in. I believe this thing at Michigan University was wildly overblown.

[Adept-Omega]

At 2/10/04 05:28 PM, red_skunk wrote: In the case of education, ie: Michigan University, income is also a factor. 20 points for "socio-economic disadvantage." I believe that inherent wealth advantages are only one part of the overall equation, underlying racism and biotry being the other large problem that affirmative action attempts to resolve.

I believe that affirmative action does more to rationalize racism and bigotry than it does to debunk it. It may have been useful shortly after the civil rights movement, where conservative employers were lashing back at minorities by denying them jobs for obnoxious reasons. This whiplash has since died down, and virtually disappeared. Affirmative action simply makes it remain a deciding factor.

Since socio-economic disadvantage is on there, racial classification is purely a matter of opinion, as opposed to a poorness-correction demograph. Opportunity is based off of what I am able to attend based off of how much I have available to me -- appearance in no way determines that.

[CapitalistSocialist]

I don't know if anyone will understand this but : -
Imagine you need a school which matches EXACTLY the racial/sexual profile of the area. I'd like to think of it as a weighing scales which you need to balance.
Whites - Ethnic Minorities.
Basically when the weighing scales is balanced you have a completely fair and equal chance.
At the moment : -
Whites > Ethnic Minorities.
Therefore you need affirmative action to balance the weighing scales even to the point of a higher proportion of ethnic minorities than would be expected end up going to the university.
Whites < Ethnic Minorities.
You will then remove the discrimination so that hopefully the children of the more educated ethnic minorities will also go to University on a completely level playing field.
Whites - Ethnic Minorities.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/10/04 08:05 PM, Adept_Omega wrote: I believe that affirmative action does more to rationalize racism and bigotry than it does to debunk it. It may have been useful shortly after the civil rights movement, where conservative employers were lashing back at minorities by denying them jobs for obnoxious reasons. This whiplash has since died down, and virtually disappeared. Affirmative action simply makes it remain a deciding factor.

Yet blacks really only got the right to vote in the sixities. Before that, They were intimidated, forced away from the polls in many areas of the country. Women were emancipated only slightly before that. So you've got barely fifty years since America became a truly democratic country without an [official] government-orchestrated class structure.

And I guess no one will acknowledge the one study I cited, where 'white' names were overwhelmingly picked over 'black' names. I think your deluding youself if you think that there aren't still problems that need to be addressed:

http://www.ethnicmajority.com/workplace_discrimination_news.htm#Income gap between blacks, whites grows in California
"The wage gap between African Americans and whites in California has grown in the past decade and persists even when comparing people with the same type of education and occupation, according to a new study.

Reed and co-author Jennifer Cheng compared the median hourly wages of U.S.- born Latinos, Asian Americans and African Americans against those of non- Hispanic white workers in California, separating the earnings of men and women.

They found that Latino men earned 81 cents for every dollar earned by white men, African American men earned 74 cents to a white man's dollar, and Asian American men earned $1.04 for every dollar earned by white men.

Among women, Latinas earned 79 cents relative to white women, African American women earned 86 cents, and Asian American women earned $1.15 for each dollar earned by white women.

The trend in California mirrors that in the rest of the nation, the authors said."

same article, further on:

"The findings suggest that improving access to education is essential for improving the earnings of Latinos, said Reed, but it is only part of the solution to the inequalities faced by African Americans.

"African American wages have fallen relative to whites over the past decade,

even though they are getting better educated," Reed said.

Anthony Reed, president of the Santa Clara County Black Lawyers Association (no relation to Deborah Reed), said he had seen institutional racism at law firms put African American attorneys at a disadvantage."

http://www.ethnicmajority.com/workplace_discrimination_news.htm#White Men Still Outearn Other Groups
"On average, a white man with a college diploma earned about $65,000 in 2001. Similarly educated white women made about 40 percent less, while black and Hispanic men earned 30 percent less, according to Census Bureau (news - web sites) estimates being released Friday."

Related to the study I keep citing:
http://www.ethnicmajority.com/workplace_discrimination_news.htm#Study finds it helps in U.S. job search to have white name _ Brett gets more responses than `Kareem
"The study authors said the results can solely be attributed to name manipulation.

"Our results so far suggest that there is a substantial amount of discrimination in the job recruiting process," they wrote."

Opportunity is based off of what I am able to attend based off of how much I have available to me -- appearance in no way determines that.

Does it?

[RedSkunk]

If you have any sense, you'll figure out to copy+paste those links, up untill the text turns italic. If anyone is reading what I'm citing anyways..

At 2/10/04 08:36 PM, -Jamster- wrote: I don't know if anyone will understand this but :

I understood the metaphor, and agree. The issue seems to be whether there is an imbalance now.

[JoS]

At 2/10/04 03:37 PM, red_skunk wrote: I totally forgot when my class started, missed it. Bleh. Oh well.

At 2/10/04 10:25 AM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote:

I looked up the Tornto Fire Department thing. There seems to be news flurries in '96 and '99. Now, here's how it breaks down: in '99, 90% of the firefighters in that department where white males.(2) To be fair, "84 per cent of all applicants were white and male; 91 per cent of those applicants who passed the initial screening test were white and male"(3)

But you point out that they lowered requirements to let in minorities and women. That's true: the Toronto fire department had required a "16" on it's tests, and when people asked for more women on the workforce, they tried to up the requirement to "18." The problem is, in the majority of municipalities in the surrounding area, the requirement is "13." Strange, I think, that a 13 is fine for everywhere else, but then Toronto wants to up their requirements even more after there was a push to get more women on the force. (2)

Im sure more people apply to work for the Toronto firedepartment than the Hagersville fire department. The more applicants, the higher the standard.

Hell, I very strongly doubt that 90% of the force does that on a regular basis.

But how do you explain to a family that just lost someone in a fire that the reason their son/daughter/husband/wife is dead because you lowered the standard since 90% of the time they dont have to carry heavy stuff. The fact is when lives are on the line, even if there is a remote chance of something happening that could cost a life, I hope they can deal with it. Maybe cops shouldnt be trained in fire arm use, since 90% of the time they never have to fire a shot.

But yes, they want to keep the force strong, right? Why then, did "the union resist attempts to regularly test incumbent firefighters to ensure they were indeed as strong and fit as the women the artificially high standards barred." (2)? If they were in fact worried about keeping a healthy task force, shouldn't they be regularly testing the older firemen?

Cause thats what every union does. The union is not as concerned with hiring practices, just how they treat their employee's.

[stonedpimp69]

At 2/10/04 08:37 PM, red_skunk wrote:

Yet blacks really only got the right to vote in the sixities. Before that, They were intimidated, forced away from the polls in many areas of the country. Women were emancipated only slightly before that. So you've got barely fifty years since America became a truly democratic country without an [official] government-orchestrated class structure.

Oh and guess what? 100 years before that they were enslaved. Maybe we should pay them reparations. And a hundred years before THAT there was a brutal indian genocide. and thousands of years before that., half of europe was enslaved/conquered by rome. Maybe italy should have to pay them all reparations.
Do you see what i'm trying to say?

They found that Latino men earned 81 cents for every dollar earned by white men, African American men earned 74 cents to a white man's dollar, and Asian American men earned $1.04 for every dollar earned by white men.

Among women, Latinas earned 79 cents relative to white women, African American women earned 86 cents, and Asian American women earned $1.15 for each dollar earned by white women.

I thought you just said(a bit earlier), that asians are also an ethnic minority, and subject to AA. Not by this study they ain't. Also by your logic, since asians earns more than whites. there should be a special aa for whites, and we should all also get the race card to use against asians.

"African American wages have fallen relative to whites over the past decade,

even though they are getting better educated," Reed said.

How is it possible, for ANYBODY to be better educated, with this public school system(which is btw yet ANOTHER product of AA) Why is it another product of AA? BEcause they had to create a school, where, those *poor, uneducated blacks* can go and learn? Umm yeahhh... and their gonna remain uneducated if you make the school system the way it is, the difference is, so will whites, could this be why we have to *impot brains from abroad*?<===figure of speach. You knjow what i'm trying to sya right?
/me wonders
therefore, there wages are RIGHTFULLY falling, since we still have the advantage that soem of our parents have hte money to send us to private school. HOWever. Of the white men, who go to private school, less and less will be able to send THEIR kids to private school, therefore the number of PROPERLY educated(as opposed to make-believe eduacated as in the public schools) will be falling.

Next stop:
Social security.

Black girl 16, is dumb enough to get pregnant. She doesn't finish school, and we pay her money(fine the government pays her out of our money) for the rest of her life. Reason beeing?

Black man. Homeless+workless. He is in great shape. We pay him through welfare(yet again a byproduct of AA). He COULD go and sweep the streets. He COULD go and work at Mcdonalds. But why should he. We pay him anyway....

I've looked up these numbers before. Of homeless people black homeless people, get more welfare then whites, so don't come with the bullshit about this not having anything to do with AA.

If said bum(do not confuse with bumcheekcity...lol), CAN'T work(mentally ustable) then put him in infirmarary (crippled) pay him money give him a wheelchair feed him. It's not his fault. But if he CAN work, but PREFERS to receive money for nothing, fuck no. If it'd be up to me, i'd cut that*lifeline* of this second, to FORCE him to go to work.

*gasp*

Medicare....
*looks at the paragraph on welfare*
Well since these arguments are SO similiar, i won't go into them, unless of course you don't understand what i would argue as. Then I'll chew it up for you, before spoonfeeding it to you...

[RedSkunk]

God, it's late and I need to do work. So I'll leave the real reply for tomorrow.

At 2/10/04 10:24 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: Do you see what i'm trying to say?

No, I have no fucking idea. The strangehold the church once had over Europe is gone. And it's not quantatively affecting anyone anymore.

I thought you just said(a bit earlier), that asians are also an ethnic minority, and subject to AA. Not by this study they ain't. Also by your logic, since asians earns more than whites. there should be a special aa for whites, and we should all also get the race card to use against asians.

I've never mentioned Asians, but yes, they are an ethnic minority in the US, congratulations. According to that study, Asian males are paid, on average, more than white males. Yes. Congratulations.

How is it possible, for ANYBODY to be better educated, with this public school system

You make no sense. I'm guessing your talking about K-12 when you bring up the public school system, which yes, is in shambles. Despite that, some people manage to learn a bit in it, enough to get into higher education. My quote was talking about how more blacks are better educated than before. Meaning they've complete high school, and gone on to higher learning. Yet they are being paid less. Did you get that point?

Why is it another product of AA? BEcause they had to create a school, where, those *poor, uneducated blacks* can go and learn?

No, segregated schools were illegalised. You must of missed that. But, true, your right, rascist whites did oftentimes simply set-up private schools specifically for their white children in the south, or start the school somewhere else, not telling the black parents. But that is pretty much over now.

Umm yeahhh... and their gonna remain uneducated if you make the school system the way it is, the difference is, so will whites, could this be why we have to *impot brains from abroad*?

Once again, you make no sense. Are you talking about K-12 or higher education? Affirmative action has very little to do with K-12, since with public schools, it's decided by where you live, you don't have to apply or anything.

/me wonders

Me too.

therefore, there wages are RIGHTFULLY falling, since we still have the advantage that soem of our parents have hte money to send us to private school.

So. You just said that the wages of black people, who are just as skilled as their white counterparts, should rightfully earn less. That's a beautiful statement right there. Good job.

HOWever. Of the white men, who go to private school, less and less will be able to send THEIR kids to private school, therefore the number of PROPERLY educated(as opposed to make-believe eduacated as in the public schools) will be falling.

Why are they less and less able to send their kids to private schools? Do you even grasp what your saying?

Next stop:
rascist bullshit about dead beats on welfare.

Brilliant.