Affirmative Action/Reverse Racism

[Sauron]

oscuro.

 

[Clay]

i too hate the term reverse racism because like you said, it implies that whites just naturally hate minorities, which simply isnt true. i only used it for the sake of the liberal crowd on these forums and to more strongly imply that affirmative action as we see it today only promotes racism towards whites.

 

[wildernesse]

A few years ago, three girls sued UGA because of the affirmative action policy--I don't remember if they won or not. In the course of the whole thing, I learned several things about UGA's AA policy.

AA is not applied to the top students--if you have excellent scores and GPA, you get in, no matter what. The school offers acceptence letters to all the top kids--when the people accept or not, there are spaces plus the spaces that are left after all the top-notch kids are asked.

Now we go to the second round, where the points come in. In this case, UGA gave points to MALE applicants of any race because we have more female students than male. (Also, legacies and other things were considered here.) I think that many schools apply AA to the second tier of students as well. If you are well-qualified, AA doesn't come into the picture.

The three girls didn't get in and they accused UGA of discriminating against their gender. What was really amusing however, was when the newspaper published the girls' SAT and GRE scores--they were terrible (and considering what UGA will accept, that's saying something). (What was funny was that the girl with the lowest scores was enrolled at Auburn--our rival. I always knew they got the dummies.) I was *glad* that they didn't get in--when we let people who have poor grades and scores into our school, it lowers the reputation of my education. These girls didn't deserve to get in.

But, hey--I'm the type of person who thinks that you shouldn't have a second tier--that if you don't meet the requirements, you don't have a chance. Maybe you'll work harder next time.

Of course, that idea only works if you are provided with a level playing field and often times, minorities are not. Their schools are under-funded, they are more apt to live in poverty, which has a correlation with lower test scores and graduation rates, which has a correlation with the success of a school district, which has a correlation with the ability to retain and keep good teachers, which has a correlation with the quality of education, which correlates with the ability to get a good job, which correlates with socioeconomic level, which correlates with. . . . Good grief, where do you start?!

--tibac

 

[coastie]

I'm in agreement wildernesse

 

[Clay]

thats how all colleges ought to be run like-if you dont meet the academic requirements then you dont get in.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Clay
i too hate the term reverse racism because like you said, it implies that whites just naturally hate minorities, which simply isnt true.

It does not imply that.

Racism has a formal definition; i.e., institutionalized discrimination by the govt, on the basis of race.

i only used it for the sake of the liberal crowd on these forums

You only use it for the sake of the liberal crowd - what does that mean, Clay?  Are you trying to say that you are deliberately trying to bait liberals and/or mischaracterize their positions?

That's pretty unfair. Why would you do that?

and to more strongly imply that affirmative action as we see it today only promotes racism towards whites.

Wrong.  AA only levels the playing field.  There are some whites who feel threatened by that, of course. 

 

[IslandBreeze]

It does NOT level the playing field. If it leveled the playing field, then jobs and colleges would be merit-based only, and they're NOT.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Cammie
It does NOT level the playing field. If it leveled the playing field, then jobs and colleges would be merit-based only, and they're NOT.

Incorrect as usual, Cammie.

It does level the playing field.  It compensates for past "unleveling" that was done to people.  You still can't seem to see that point.

 

[IslandBreeze]

How long are we going to live in the past? And besides, NOBODY in MY generation has been "unleveled." In fact, they've had it QUITE good, but they have a generation of parents telling them how THEY were mistreated, so they feel OWED. Guess what? Now we have a bunch of young, angry "minorities" who feel that they should be given everything and anything they want because of past injustices that they've never actually dealt with.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Cammie
How long are we going to live in the past?

We've been through this before, Cammie. 

The actions of the past continue to have effect in the present. As long as that is the case, then there's damage done.

Imagine this situation.  You're 3 years old.  Someone kills your parents, and cause you to have a terrible childhood - you get passed around to different foster homes, etc.  When you turn 18, you sue the murderer in civil court. Then they respond "stop living in the past".  Totally bogus response.  You could rightfully respond, "The murder of my parents might be in the past, buddy, but let me tell you - I'm living with the results of it every day. " 

Moreover, those same attitudes and barriers continue to exist today.  See wildernesse's post for a well written description.

And besides, NOBODY in MY generation has been "unleveled."

Absolutely not true.  It's kind of a silly statement anyhow, Cammie.  Just because you might not know anyone who has benefitted from AA, that doesn't mean that "NOBODY in your generation" didn't benefit.

 

 

 

[IslandBreeze]

Originally posted by Sauron


The actions of the past continue to have effect in the present. As long as that is the case, then there's damage done.

Imagine this situation.  You're 3 years old.  Someone kills your parents, and cause you to have a terrible childhood - you get passed around to different foster homes, etc.  When you turn 18, you sue the murderer in civil court. Then they respond "stop living in the past".  Totally bogus response.  You could rightfully respond, "The murder of my parents might be in the past, buddy, but let me tell you - I'm living with the results of it every day. "  

Imagine this situation: you live in the ghetto. Your parents are dirt-poor, and people are killed outside of your house all the time. You go to high school, and make good grades, because you want to get out. Not only do you make good grades, you get a full ride to college, where you become a success in the world. THAT is what happens when people stop living in the past.

AA only opens wounds and rubs salt on them, and rubs people being discriminated against NOW the wrong way.

And no, my generation has not been discriminated against. They never had separate bathrooms, or had to fight to vote, or go to a restaurant or movie theater. "Minorities" of my generation get to go to college for free. AA is unnecessary and unconstitutional.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Cammie
Imagine this situation: you live in the ghetto. Your parents are dirt-poor, and people are killed outside of your house all the time. You go to high school, and make good grades, because you want to get out. Not only do you make good grades, you get a full ride to college, where you become a success in the world. THAT is what happens when people stop living in the past.

No, that's a fairy tale scenario that doesn't happen in the majority of scenarios. 

And it's your ridiculous contention that such a poor, child in the ghetto has exactly the same chances in life, exactly the same training and preparation, etc. as a white kid growing up in middle-class suburbia.  You're in some serious denial.

I also noticed that you failed to address my example.  If you are today experiencing the effects of some past action, then please explain why it is improper to point that out, and ask for recompense. 

AA only opens wounds and rubs salt on them, and rubs people being discriminated against NOW the wrong way.

No, it rubs some white people the wrong way, because they fear the loss of their privileged position and they misunderstand how AA works.

And no, my generation has not been discriminated against.

Flatly incorrect, Cammie.  I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it:  you don't know what you're talking about. 

In fact, there was an article this week on how people who have "black-sounding" names get fewer callbacks from employers for jobs, or from landlords.

Every so often, a news organization like "Dateline" will demonstrate how much harder it is for a black couple or a black person to do some simple thing in life:  get a job, get credit for a new car, etc.  And that's only blacks - the same situation exists with Latinos, native Americans, etc.

You are either (a) unaware of any of these concrete examples,  or (b) choosing to ignore them.  That's why I said that you don't know what you're talking about. You really need to educate yourself on the current state of race relations in the USA, before responding on this topic.  You show a pathetic lack of familiarity with the subject matter.

 

 

[IslandBreeze]

And once again, you resort to insults...

To imply that I am uneducated just because you disagree with my opinion is just rude. Obviously you and I have experienced totally different things in life. YOU are choosing to ignore the fact that white people are indeed being discriminated against, and the fact that AA is unconstitutional.

I've seen "dateline's" exposes, and quite frankly, I think they're reading into something that's not there. Again, I've said it before. If people would STOP making race an issue, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Cammie
And once again, you resort to insults...

It's not an insult.

To imply that I am uneducated just because you disagree with my opinion is just rude.

I didn't say you were uneducated.  I'm sure you went to school and graduated. I saw you didn't know what you were talking about, with respect to this topic. 

You said that discrimination doesn't happen to your generation. Yet you were unaware of the two points I made: 

1. There was an article this week on how people who have "black-sounding" names get fewer callbacks from employers for jobs, or from landlords; and

2. Every so often, a news organization like "Dateline" will demonstrate how much harder it is for a black couple or a black person to do some simple thing in life:  get a job, get credit for a new car, etc.  And that's only blacks - the same situation exists with Latinos, native Americans, etc.


So obviously discrimination DOES happen to your generation, contrary to your sweeping claim.

Obviously you and I have experienced totally different things in life.

But you weren't talking about just your life.  You said that "NOBODY in your generation" experienced racism. 

That's a much bigger statement than just commenting on your solitary life, Cammie.

YOU are choosing to ignore the fact that white people are indeed being discriminated against, and the fact that AA is unconstitutional.

No, I'm not ignoring those two claims.  They simply aren't true, and you have presented zero evidence to support them.  So it's totally proper that I ignore them, because they're just empty claims.

I've seen "dateline's" exposes, and quite frankly, I think they're reading into something that's not there.

No, such exposes have been done numerous times, and the results are the same.  And they're rigged

There was also a similar scam at a major home lender a few years ago, where the loan officers had a code system that they used, to warn when a particular applicant was white, black or latino.  So if your "loan closer" was Alice, then your file is flagged as being white.  If your loan closer is "Mary", then you're black.  If your loan closer is "Patty", then you're latino.

The fact that you are unaware of this only shows how little you truly know about the topic. 

Again, I've said it before. If people would STOP making race an issue, it wouldn't be an issue.

But that wouldn't make the effects go away, Cammie.  Again:  I see that you failed to address my example of the child whose parents were murdered.  If you are today experiencing the effects of some past action, then please explain why it is improper to point that out, and ask for recompense. 

This is the third time I've offered the example, and the third time that you've ducked out and failed to answer.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Cammie
Imagine this situation: you live in the ghetto. Your parents are dirt-poor, and people are killed outside of your house all the time. You go to high school, and make good grades, because you want to get out. Not only do you make good grades, you get a full ride to college, where you become a success in the world. THAT is what happens when people stop living in the past.

You know, I'm glad you brought this up.  Why?  Because we have such an example.

Once upon a time, there was a young poor black boy who was growing up in a large family, in abject poverty.  In fact, he wasn't even an American; he was from Jamaica.  He worked hard, studied hard, joined the military, etc. He pretty much fulfilled your "fantasy scenario" above.  And eventually, he became the American Secretary of State.  His name?

Colin Powell.

Yet even after following your fantasy prescription for "not living in the past", Colin Powell says that AA is still necessary.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8578-2003Jan17.html

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said during Bush's campaign that he hoped the University of Michigan would prevail in the case, and copies of his comments are being used by some university officials to build support for their policies. Powell told WJR-AM in Detroit in September 2000 that he thinks affirmative action "is still necessary."

"I will continue to speak out for it," he said, according to a transcript from Video Monitoring Services of America. "There is a case now pending, of course, with the University of Michigan that I hope the university wins."

Colin Powell is

• black; he has
• experienced a lifetime of being black and the discrimination that goes along with it; he is
• a well-respected military man and statesman;
• is a recognized role model for many Americans today; and
• he pretty much followed your "don't live in the past" recipe above.

In spite of all that he thinks that AA is still necessary.

As for you:  you're a 21 year old white girl, with no such life experiences as Colin Powell has had. 

So I guess my question, Cammie, would be:  considering all the above, why should we listen to you, instead of Colin Powell?



 

 

[Clay]

reverse racism does imply that the tables are turned and a show of hatred or unfair treatment towards whites just because they are white.

i used reverse racism because that is the term most openly and generally accepted by the liberal crowd to classify racism towards whites. bait liberals? from watching these threads for some years, neither side needs to bait the other. it always just seems to happen.

how does AA level the playing field? it simply gives an unfair advantage to minorites in the workplace and in the educational field. we see it clearly in this college case presented. if you were a black individual, you would simply have a much higher chance of being accepted than a white individual. how is this fair? it should simply and soley be based on their academic acheivements. everyone takes the ACT or SAT. if their scores are high enough and their high school academic record is sufficient, then by all means, accept all those who qualify. affirmative action in the college system simply puts the white individual a few fries short of a happy meal to start with, just because they are white.

 

[juiblex]

reverse racism does imply that the tables are turned and a show of hatred or unfair treatment towards whites just because they are white.

unfair and hatred? indeed. perhaps you might care to go to some of the poorer predominantly black suburbs where they cannot afford the privelidged education of a white middle-class family, where they can afford tutors upon tutors and private schools with accelled curricula and then talk to them about unfair and why AA is wrong. or perhaps talk to a suburb predominantly Russian who emgirated only a few years back with very little education and very little english, but are still bright children despite the inability to find educational resources.

AA doesnt let stupid people in, it lets the brightest of the less priveliged members of society have a fair chance in order to make things more even in the future.

 

[juiblex]

oh, and then you get those far-right nuts who claim that Mexicans/African-Americans are lazy because they havent achieved the same standards as white americans. and then in the same breath declare AA a travesty!

 

[IslandBreeze]

Originally posted by juiblex
unfair and hatred? indeed. perhaps you might care to go to some of the poorer predominantly black suburbs where they cannot afford the privelidged education of a white middle-class family, where they can afford tutors upon tutors and private schools with accelled curricula and then talk to them about unfair and why AA is wrong. or perhaps talk to a suburb predominantly Russian who emgirated only a few years back with very little education and very little english, but are still bright children despite the inability to find educational resources.

AA doesnt let stupid people in, it lets the brightest of the less priveliged members of society have a fair chance in order to make things more even in the future.

Excuse me, I didn't have tutors upon tutors, nor did I attend a private school. And AA DOES allow less qualified students/potential employees to be put above more qualified people simply because they are a "minority." U of MI has shown this to be true, since "minorities" have a MUCH higher dropout/ failure rate in the program.

 

[IslandBreeze]

I am going to bed. I will have sources/articles for you tomorrow.