So who's discrimanting, sexist, or racist?

[Whatssnew]

When I went to collage there was many government aid programs. If you are black, native american, female, the only member of your family to attend collage, have a poor family, have kids, are foriegn, ex... then there was a extra boost for you. But if you are male, white, blond, and from a good family then screw you! My point is giving anyone a benifit based for any reason upon race, sex, heritage, or beliefs makes your a sexist, racist, makes you a discimanatory person. People say, well this group of people is poor, or this group of people needs help... Well that may very well be, but take note of the Irish. They came over here in hords during a famine. They brought next to nothing, and many of them died trying to get here. When they got here they were dispised and treated poorly. Yet they didn't just sit on there asses and say this isn't fair, or your not nice, they worked dam hard and made good lives for themselves. This goes to prove no matter how low you start, you have no one to blame but yourself for not improving your station in life. So why should anyone be given exta aid based upon what life delt them? It is not the governments job to even the playing field, and who's to say what is even? If you support evening the playing field, consider this. If you allow the government to tilt the board in someones favor, they can tilt it in whatever way they dam well please. Why is it right to make two wrongs to rectify one wrong? Please mention other ways you believe our government is being racist, sexist, or discriminating in the name of "being fair."

[Suburbanite]

I'm sure the Irish had it very hard, but this is hardly easy labor:


Secondly, affirmative action no longer exists, and their has be a subsequent decrease in Black college students.
I know a guy, right when Affirmative Action came out Harvard approached him and asked him to come to their school. He accepted, went to Harvard, went on to Harvard Law, then moved to California to pursue a career as an actor and never made anything of himself. Sure, maybe he deprived someone who would've made something out of the education from getting his chance.
But this man did go on to have about six children: all of whom went or are currently attending college. It is more likely, of course, that the sons and daughters of a college educated person are more likely to attend.
Affirmative Action was about posterity, the future. It wasn't about ripping off a more deserving White person; it was about hopefully creating whats called an equitable (not equal) system. The difference, the purpose of the dream of Affirmative Action, was that an equitable society gave everyone the means to equally achieve, but would still rely on merit. Thats what you want, you want a meritocracy, a system where those who work the hardest get the biggest rewards, right? What if the system was such that someone had to work twice as hard to achieve the same thing? Should that person, in theory, be rewarded for his extra effort?
Affirmative Action was created to eventually run out of a use for itself, it only really needed one or maybe two generations, and could perhaps have helped a lot of people.

[Chancellor]

When I went to collage there was many government aid programs.

I wasn't aware that a collage was even a place.

If you are black, native american, female, the only member of your family to attend collage,

How does one attend a collage?

have a poor family, have kids, are foriegn, ex... then there was a extra boost for you. But if you are male, white, blond, and from a good family then screw you! My point is giving anyone a benifit based for any reason upon race, sex, heritage, or beliefs makes your a sexist, racist, makes you a discimanatory person. People say, well this group of people is poor, or this group of people needs help...

Yes, that's really what it comes down to: people who are not white males are relegated to eternal victimhood ever in need of help from paternalistic liberals.

Well that may very well be, but take note of the Irish. They came over here in hordes during a famine. They brought next to nothing, and many of them died trying to get here. When they got here they were dispised and treated poorly. Yet they didn't just sit on there asses and say this isn't fair, or your not nice, they worked damn hard and made good lives for themselves. This goes to prove no matter how low you start, you have no one to blame but yourself for not improving your station in life.

What exactly does "dispised" mean? The Irish were treated poorly but so were most immigrants. Americans have a long history of denying freedom and opportunity to subsequent groups of immigrants.

So why should anyone be given exta aid based upon what life delt them?

They shouldn't - at least not from the government.

It is not the governments job to even the playing field, and who's to say what is even?

Well, you really mean "to level the playing field." Of course, there is some question as to what "level" is (there are those in the black civil rights movement and the feminist movement who insist that it means not equal opportunity but, instead, equal outcomes) but I would agree it is not the role of government beyond the guarantee in the 14th amendment of equal protection of the laws.

If you support evening the playing field, consider this. If you allow the government to tilt the board in someones favor, they can tilt it in whatever way they dam well please. Why is it right to make two wrongs to rectify one wrong? Please mention other ways you believe our government is being racist, sexist, or discriminating in the name of "being fair."

I support individual people - regardless of color, gender (meaning male or female and not anything in between), ethnic and national origin, and religion (or lack thereof) - having the equal opportunity to rise to their own potential. I don't believe in rights based on group identity - other than the identity of "American."

[Chancellor]

Secondly, affirmative action no longer exists, and their has be a subsequent decrease in Black college students.

Actually, it does still exist. But even if it didn't, why should blacks be allowed LOWER STANDARDS for college admissions, applications for jobs as police officers or firemen (or promotions within those fields)? Are you people (paternalistic leftists) so damned hateful of blacks (and other "minorities") that you insist they are incapable of competing on an equal footing with white males? Does being black (or other "minority") somehow make a person less capable of achieving the kinds of scores needed to get into college? That's what affirmative action is really saying - that "minorities" are inferior to white males and are incapable of competing on an equal footing; therefore they need special help. Frankly, I find your sick paternalistic notion to be vile and offensive!

I know a guy, right when Affirmative Action came out Harvard approached him and asked him to come to their school. He accepted, went to Harvard, went on to Harvard Law, then moved to California to pursue a career as an actor and never made anything of himself. Sure, maybe he deprived someone who would've made something out of the education from getting his chance.

Harvard did this guy a disservice by offering him entrance if he didn't have the same grades white applicants were required to have..

But this man did go on to have about six children: all of whom went or are currently attending college. It is more likely, of course, that the sons and daughters of a college educated person are more likely to attend.

Well, it's nice that they're attending college but merely attending college doesn't mean a damned thing if you don't use what you've learned.

Affirmative Action was about posterity, the future. It wasn't about ripping off a more deserving White person; it was about hopefully creating whats called an equitable (not equal) system.

Well, yes it was about ripping off white people - to punish them for the way blacks in particular were treated up until the 1960s. There is nothing equitable about a program that says to minorities "You're not capable of competing on an equal footing with whites; so we'll give you extra help by lowering the standards and giving you preferential treatment."

The difference, the purpose of the dream of Affirmative Action, was that an equitable society gave everyone the means to equally achieve, but would still rely on merit.

But it isn't about merit! The standards are LOWER for minorities because of affirmative action and you know damned well that lowering the standards for one group doesn't constitute merit. What they've "earned" is worth less because the standards are lower.

Thats what you want, you want a meritocracy, a system where those who work the hardest get the biggest rewards, right?

If we really want meritocracy then we would do away with affirmative action entirely.

What if the system was such that someone had to work twice as hard to achieve the same thing?

Oh, the leftist crap about equal outcomes. Please, give me a break!

Should that person, in theory, be rewarded for his extra effort?

Not really. Just because someone has to work harder than someone else to get to the same place (because of lesser ability) doesn't mean he should get extra rewards.

Affirmative Action was created to eventually run out of a use for itself, it only really needed one or maybe two generations, and could perhaps have helped a lot of people.

Nonsense! Affirmative action is a perfect example of sick leftist paternalism.

[Suburbanite]

You seem way too emotionally invested, for whatever reason, in this cause for me to really go on. I'd hate to continue to "sicken" you with my educated opinion. We're going to go in circles, I already see it.
This is all I want to say, can a real meritocracy exist when a race of people begin life deprived of an equal opportunity?
The real solution is expensive, its called reparations, and it should've been done a long long time ago when we released Black people from slavery. My personal belief is that we as a society should make any sacrifices necessary for the quality of life in our country in the future, to squelch debates and to finally realize our dream of an equitable meritocracy.

[B1NKS]

It is silly to attempt to undo what happened in the past through affirmative action and reparations; it would be more logical and practical to instead establish equality under the law (equal opportunity) once and for all and then move on, and stop living in the past, and instead look to the future. And that happened already in the US during the Civil Rights Era.

Still, I believe there is a generation of 'civil rights activists' that are really 'welfare rights activists'. They confuse equality under the law with economic equality. They confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcomes.

[Suburbanite]

During the Civil Rights, the most prominent leaders and proponents of Civil Rights were assassinated. I don't think the Civil Rights was an out and out victory for anyone. As a result, I think the issue of race made its way into the homes of white Americans, and the effect of that has been responsible for most of the recent change. But you still have situations like the Jena 6 or whatever that repeat themselves, Rodney King, whoever. Reports of schools without proper heating, old books, after the civil rights era, well into the 90's.
I'm not a huge advocate of Affirmative Action, instead I would opt for a change in how the public school system is managed, because I attribute most economic disparage to an unfair education system.
In addition, the unfair judicial system. Like Paul Mooney says they thought DNA would help put brothers away, but its setting them free.
So I mean, Black people are living under conditions that are racially unfair to them, but it isn't on the books, its not really out in the open or talked about. It isn't like Affirmative Action, which is so clear cut about its racial divisions. The Judicial system and Education system are equal, if not larger, perpetrators of this same injustice. But, where is the outrage?

[Dan_77]

You seem way too emotionally invested, for whatever reason, in this cause for me to really go on. I'd hate to continue to "sicken" you with my educated opinion.

To imply that an "educated" opinion would necessarily be in agreement with you is disingenuous. In May 08 I will receive a Juris Doctor, and much of my studies have focused on "rights", "civil rights", and the Constitution (naturally, as any good legal education does), and yet I am 100% against affirmative action, reparations, and any other liberal paternalistic clap-trap you can imagine. Many other educated people - the ones who don't fall victim to white guilt - do as well.

This is all I want to say, can a real meritocracy exist when a race of people begin life deprived of an equal opportunity?

Regardless of the answer, the question is built on a premise that is unproven.

Prove to me that BLACKS, as a RACE, do not have equal opportunity. Hint: Proving something that would equally affect similarly-situated whites, such as poverty inhibiting ability to attend college, is correlation without causation. There are many problems that affect a large number of blacks, however, they are not caused by skin color.

The real solution is expensive, its called reparations, and it should've been done a long long time ago when we released Black people from slavery.

Well, hindsight being 20/20 what should have been done was to outlaw slavery in the original Constitution. However, we can't go back in time, and harping on the issue when a vast majority of people were not part of the issue is pointless and divisive.

My personal belief is that we as a society should make any sacrifices necessary for the quality of life in our country in the future, to squelch debates and to finally realize our dream of an equitable meritocracy.

Unless those sacrifices mean giving up on reparations and affirmative action, right? When you talk about sacrifices, you mean white males of European descent making them, right?

During the Civil Rights, the most prominent leaders and proponents of Civil Rights were assassinated.

Red herring. John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were assassinated. Does that mean that rich Irish-Catholics from New England need special treatment?

But you still have situations like the Jena 6 or whatever that repeat themselves, Rodney King, whoever.

Situations like what? 6 kids beat up another kid and are prosecuted for it? I don't see what that has to do with civil rights or discrimination.

Reports of schools without proper heating, old books, after the civil rights era, well into the 90's.

Which has what to do with skin color? Do the wealthy blacks at excellent suburban schools suffer ill effects as a result of this?

In addition, the unfair judicial system. Like Paul Mooney says they thought DNA would help put brothers away, but its setting them free.

What is unfair about the judicial system that has to do with race? Again, economics =/= race.

So I mean, Black people are living under conditions that are racially unfair to them, but it isn't on the books, its not really out in the open or talked about.

You haven't shown this, or rather you haven't shown that it is based on race (as opposed to economics).

[Chancellor]

You seem way too emotionally invested, for whatever reason, in this cause for me to really go on. I'd hate to continue to "sicken" you with my educated opinion. We're going to go in circles, I already see it.

Yes, I am emotionally invested in this because affirmative action communicates a vile and offensive message to the very people it's supposed to help: the message that "minorities" are inherently inferior and need special help because they are incapable of competing on an equal footing with white males.

This is all I want to say, can a real meritocracy exist when a race of people begin life deprived of an equal opportunity?

There is only one race: the human race.

The real solution is expensive, its called reparations, and it should've been done a long long time ago when we released Black people from slavery. My personal belief is that we as a society should make any sacrifices necessary for the quality of life in our country in the future, to squelch debates and to finally realize our dream of an equitable meritocracy.

Reparations is not a solution at all! The real solution is to stop dividing people up into all these different groups and to start treating them all as Americans. There are a few of us left who still believe in the metaphorical melting pot and the concept of the colorblind society.

[Chancellor]

It is silly to attempt to undo what happened in the past through affirmative action and reparations; it would be more logical and practical to instead establish equality under the law (equal opportunity) once and for all and then move on, and stop living in the past, and instead look to the future. And that happened already in the US during the Civil Rights Era.

Still, I believe there is a generation of 'civil rights activists' that are really 'welfare rights activists'. They confuse equality under the law with economic equality. They confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcomes.

Equality under the law was established with the 14th amendment.

[Suburbanite]

I see what you mean about economic status being different than race. Yes, poor white are affected. However, their is a largely disproportionate amount of Blacks in poverty. Affirmative Action did take more than race into account as well. Firstly, people from split homes were also given special privileges, people who didn't have college educated parents, and their is a tramendous amount of preexisting support of economics is the only problem-- its a loan.
You're accusing me of white guilt. I'm going to accuse you both of holding closeted racist ideals. Its unjustified, I know, but neither of you care about justice so why hesitate?
Also, about the Jena 6, those black kids were tried as adults when a similar situation occurred when white kids jumped a black kid, and was not prosecuted equally.
Lastly, you wanted proof that Black people as a race of disenfranchised:
1/4 of Black Males under the age of 25 will have experienced some form of the correctional system
Of the 250,900 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses in 2004, 133,100 (53.05%) were black (12% of the population), 50,100 (19.97%) were Hispanic, and 64,800 (25.83%) were white. (entirely inconsistent with the stats on who uses drugs, putting Whites at the top)
In fact, the incarceration rate for white men was 709 per 100,000, for black men 4,682 per 100,000 in '05


Look, Mr. PhD, I need you to look up a word, "contingent". Now, please try and understand that things like slavery, jim crowe, defacto segregation, the crack epidemic, and living in violent ghettos all have their effects on people. These problems are very real, and are very specifically affecting the Black race more seriously than anything else.

Also, Chancellor, all white people talk about being a "color blind" society. I don't want that, and I don't think most non-white people do either. How about a society who respects people for their differences, instead of ignoring them?

[Chancellor]

Also, Chancellor, all white people talk about being a "color blind" society. I don't want that, and I don't think most non-white people do either. How about a society who respects people for their differences, instead of ignoring them?

No, not all white people talk about being a colorblind society and many whites don't want it. A nation divided against itself will not stand. If you want to be something other than American then get the hell out of my country! I don't give a rat's behind what color someone is or where one's ancestors came from: if you were born in the United States or are a naturalized citizen then you're an American and that is the only identity on which protections under the Constitution (e.g. those in the 14th amendment) are based.