If we're going to argue race shouldn't be a factor in any number of other things, like traffic stops or profiling at the airport, we can't then turn around and argue it should be used as a factor in college admissions. Like the gay marriage issue, you libs again show your utter hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways and expect to be taken seriously.

I'm not saying there isn't a case to be made against AA, but your arguments are just very one dimensional and lacking much substance or depth. Like, I didn't know it was possible to be so ostentatious yet so clueless at the same time.

Qualified minority candidates have been discriminated against for decades and continue to be because THERE ARE INHERENT SYSTEM BIASES that exist in all levels of education and society.

The reality is that America has always had a racial hierarchy with white males at the top. This society has always passed laws and given attention to issue that interest them, while they dilute the issues of subordinate/minority races. Our country may have dealt with racism but America still has racism no matter how many laws the government puts out there.

It is a fact that most minorities do not receive the best high school educations in the US compared to white students. It does not make the minority student less deserving, less persevering or intelligent college applicants it means the OPPORTUNITIES were not present for that student.

If you would take off your bigoted blinders for just a moment you might realize that it benefits us ALL to help pull people of lower classes up as they are much less likely to be a burden on society if we help empower the.m

And your arguments are little more than vague generalizations based on assumptions, hypotheticals, and outdated reality. I'm all for pulling people from lower classes up but not at the expense of some white/male who gets bumped by a less qualified minority/woman solely because of affirmative action quotas. But, of course, anyone who doesn't fall in with your liberal-think is a "bigot."

Ivy,

If a higher qualified white candidate who's had every societal advantage and has never been the victim of institutional discrimination is compared to a supposedly less qualified minority candidate, but one who comes from the bottom of the social scale, has had to fight their way up the decades old manifested racial hierarchy and system biases, and has not been afforded the same opportunities as said white candidate, then who's actually more qualified? It's not as simple to discern when considering the entire scope of the candidate's background.

You said yourself back in post 723400 that racism does still exist, "But it's nowhere near the widespread institutionalized racism of decades ago." Even if that last part's true, you'd still have to admit atleast some form of AA is necessary, correct?

No, I don't admit it's necessary. Most blacks in the U.S. today haven't experienced "institutional discrimination, racial hierarchy, or system biases," despite what Sharpton, Jackson, and the average liberal thinks. This ain't the 1960's anymore pal. Just because a candidate is white, it doesn't mean they've had "every societal advantage" any more than a black candidate hasn't. There's more of an argument to consider socioeconomic status in college applications but not race. And if we are going to consider race, then we can't bitch about blacks getting more traffic stops or Middle Easterners being profiled at the airport.

Statistically, It's obvious that there are qualified colored persons and women even more than quota required to be admitted based on merits alone. Affirmative action only makes sure that a racist staff wouldn't dismiss such cases on false claim that they weren't qualified. Plus, with Asians on the rise, white male is going to need affirmative action soon enough.

She and other applicants who did not make the cut were evaluated based on two scores. One allotted points for grades and test scores. The other, called a personal achievement index, awarded points for two required essays, leadership, activities, service and "special circumstances." Those included socioeconomic status of the student or the student's school, coming from a home with a single parent or one where English wasn't spoken. And race.

Those two scores, combined, determine admission.

Even among those students, Fisher did not particularly stand out. Court records show her grade point average (3.59) and SAT scores (1180 out of 1600) were good but not great for the highly selective flagship university. The school's rejection rate that year for the remaining 841 openings was higher than the turn-down rate for students trying to get into Harvard.

As a result, university officials claim in court filings that even if Fisher received points for her race and every other personal achievement factor, the letter she received in the mail still would have said no.

It's true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.
Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher's who were also denied entry into the university that year.

http://www.propublica.org/article/a-colo...ction-case-is-r

Yeah, just shove your fingers in your ears and repeat, "Minorities aren't really discriminated against, they're just lazy and like to complain and liberals are evil degenerates and anyone who disagrees is an imbecile", all you want. The rest of us live in the real world, not the idealized fantasy world of Utah, a sheltered bubble that's only 2% black.

Every minority in America experiences bias in one form or another just because they're a minority, while whites have every societal advantage because they've never had to experience those racial biases. Mountains of data suggests institutionalzied discrimination still exists, the African Americans in this thread and others have told you it exists, someone like me who's lived and travelled throughout the deep South tells you it still exists, but you can go on educating us "libs" in the bigoted world of your jaded imagination. This isn't even a debatable point anymore, I'm just trying to figure out if you're practicing intellectual dishonesty, veiled bigotry, or just don't know any better.

And btw your last sentence literally makes no sense and socioeconomics and race in this country are pretty much interdependant. Are you trolling? Yes or no.

That's about 5th time you've used the "colored person" term.
Only pointing it out this time because you used what is considered to be the appropriate term for (what I figure you're talking about) people of Korean,Japanese, and Korean background.

When I meet people who use the "colored" term in this country, it's generally a person of a certain age and/or regional origin(South, deep South specifically)...and nine times out of ten they use "old school" terms when referring to other groups of people also.

I don't and can't speak for all Africans in the diaspora, and people define themselves using different terms...but "colored" ain't one of them....unless you're talking about American Black folks who are or 75 years of age or older.

I'm really not sure about all these terms. I meant African Americans, Asians, and Native Americans. Also, I've been to B'ham Alabama and I spent a lot of time with older people. So there you have it. I'm sorry that it was not an appropriate term.

No apologies needed.

Just giving you a heads up,unless you are around older Black folks who heard and used the term growing up as children and STILL use it.......using that term in real life will generally cause people to stare at you like you have horns coming out of your head.

"People of color" is/was a term in early 90s that was used in print when discussing "minority groups" in America.


If it makes you feel any better, I've had similiar episodes in real life where I'm talking to people of other backgrounds and they clarify something for me.It confused me a few times as well, as I was hearing conflicting views from different people.


There's no consensus view but when in doubt..use the safest term.

On one of George Carlin's albums from the 70s he comments on the use of the term african-american. He say "It lasted about 2 minutes". I remember that decade. He's right. Just a handful of people used it. Times change and people change with it.

If you watch Red Tails, the black pilots in it say that they prefer Negro.

Yep. This is what you libs do. Anyone who calls you on your BS you paint as prejudiced or not as cultured as you.



Do they experience racism? Some do, sure. But institutionalized racism? To such a degree that warrants and justifies affirmative action (i.e. reverse racism)? Sorry. That's a fantasy world you and other libs live in.

And, by the way, there are plenty of whites that don't have "every societal advantage" just because they're white. That you actually believe this shows you've been drinking the lib kool-aid way too long.

Well I don't think anyone on this board's ever going to label you as eclectic and open minded, that ship sailed for you a loooong time ago. I'm just pointing out the petty-sophmoric nature of your 'argument' as all you've done is adamantly repeat over, and over again that "qualified whites shouldn't be passed over by unqualified minorities", as if there's no underlying societal factors involved and "qualified" isn't at all a subjective term.

If all you have is anecdotal evidence and you live in a state that's only 1% black, compared to states where the average is more around 30%, then you're lacking any credibility whatsoever.


If you have evidence that it doesn't exist then cite it, b/c otherwise you're talking complete nonsense. You're the only opponent of AA I've ever encountered who thinks AA is a 'total BS idea' and insitutional discrimination is a fantasy land. If you were even as remotely concerned about a minority who gets passed over as you are a white then you wouldn't even be debating this issue.

Because I could give you loads of anecdotal evidence of judges, business owners and teachers in the deep South who doubled as KKK members, and how blacks there couldn't see a doctor b/c the only hospital in their podunk town only offered financing to "select" patients, but considering you think the African Americans on this board are living in a fantasy world, I doubt anything an observational Caucasian tells you would make a difference.

But there's nothing fantastical or imaginary about verifiable, replicable academic and institutional University study data:





Perhaps if you peruse the links I provided above this holiday weekend you'll get a clue sometime between now and Monday, but I'll enjoy the holiday and won't hold my breath.

You can post all the links from liberal think-tanks and universities you want. It comes down to the basic fact of reverse racism, which affirmative action is, being wrong. You keep trying to muddle things by bringing up meaningless anecdotal evidence about people in the South doubling as KKK members, relative minority percentages in states, etc. but it's not going to change what's right and what's wrong. A more qualified (and I'm talking in terms of grades) student should not be passed over by a less qualified student. A more qualified job candidate (and I'm talking the ability to do the job) shouldn't be passed over by a less qualified one. It's not fair, it's not right, and you know it. We've seen plenty of examples in the news. A white student getting passed over, despite having better grades. A more qualified white guy losing out a position to the local fire department because they had a quota to meet. You, like all libs, are against racism or sexism until the tables are turned and it benefits minorities and women. Then you change your tune real fast. It's why you, and those like you, have zero credibility.

There are numerous other factors considered than just grades when determining qualification, as has already been pointed out to you.

If one student has a 3.2 with no extracurriculars and another has a 3.0 but was captain of the football team, newspaper staff, community volunteer, worked their way through school, etc., the 3.0 can be considered more qualified. Same goes with a student who comes from abject poverty, had to help raise their siblings, had to struggle just to eat everday, had to deal with institutional bias b/c they're a minority, that student could be considered more qualified than one who has slightly better grades but comes from a wealthy family and only had to concentrate on school.

Once that lower student receives the same opportunities there's a chance they'll far excel over others who've had more opportunities to that point, and the schools know that, that's why they consider more than just grades which AA factors into the equation. It would be stupid and counter productive not to if they want the best people. You're just dead wrong on that point in every way.

And as long as the legacy factor continues where people like George W. Bush get into Yale even though they barely passed high school, AA is all the more needed. You say it too should be abolished, but it never will so it's a moot point.

Where job discrimination is concerned, same thing as above. If two potential employees out of college have similar qualifications but the lower income minority who had to work to pay their way through school and came from a poor area doesn't quite stack up to the millionaire's son, that's going to be taken into consideration, employers would be foolish to not if they want to hire the best person. Because once the lower income minority, who's more so learned values such as steady work, street smarts, and time management to that point, has the chance to put their full attention to their job, there's a chance they're going to be a more productive employee. And has already been pointed out, if they don't perform the job well, they'll simply be fired.

As far as two NYC firefighters, or any type of other applicants, where the white loses out simply b/c of AA, yes that's reverse racism set in motion to counter the 150+ years of establishmental racism that's manifested itself in the form of everything the black candidate and his ancestors have had to deal with every day of their lives, and has affected virtually every aspect of their current standing. Statistically the white will have a much better shot at receiving employment elsewhere at a predominantly white managed businesses than will the black. At this point every state in this country excepting a few sees it as a justifiable utilitarian measure, so I guess you'll just have to live with it or move out.

I'm aware there are several factors that go into it. But race shouldn't be one of them because it's simply race-based stereotyping. And if a black college applicant gets extra consideration because he's from a racial group that has suffered discrimination, then why can't we single out any and all Arabs going through airports, since they're likely to be Muslim and the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim? Or, for that matter, why can't we single out young black males for more traffic stops since they are over-represented when it comes to crime? You want to play the race card when it goes towards your agenda but not when it doesn't. And all because of some delusional BS idea about "countering 150+ years of establishmental racism." It doesn't counter it but simply adds to the injustice. So much of your argument above, which is representative of the thinking behind affirmative action, is based on assumptions, vague statistics, etc. People should be judged as individuals on a case-by-case basis, whether applying to a college or for a job. Like I said before, there's an argument to be made for their economic status being a factor but, if we're going to introduce race, we have to apply it across the board.

I'm white. I couldn't imagine what it's like to be black, or latino or any other minority. However, I have a very good friend who was born in Haiti. She invited us to a party at her home. We walked in and there were about 75 people there, and, aside from my family and one other couple, all of them were black. I realized then that it's how the worldview is for minorities every day.

Uh, race and race-based stereotyping are already factors in admissions, that's the point of this whole friggin discussion. When you're white your chances of admission into a predominantly white school are significantly higher than your minority counterparts, and you're more likely to have legacy parents than your minority counterparts. If you're white you don't face institutional discrimination, you don't have to worry about racist enrollment boards throwing your application in the garbage, you aren't racially profiled and boxed in by selecion committees, you don't face harsher penalties in school than your minority classmates for the same infraction, you're not affected by biased standardized testing procedures, you don't have to face biased teachers' attitudes toward teaching you, you don't have to worry about institutional stereotypes about your capacity to succeed, you're not kept out of advanced classes and stuck in special ed b/c of the way you speak and carry yourself, you don't have the burden of "acting white" to avoid these stereotypes, nor any of the numerous general societal barriers faced by minorities.

Newsflash: Black males are already singled out for more traffic crimes and face harsher penalties for the same crimes whites commit such as marijuana possession, I can post plenty of academic studies on that for you, too. And everyone and their dog is singled out when going through the airport, Arabs most of all. But I like how your response to a program that helps minorities is to immediately think of ways to counter balance the effect with more racism. Way to show your true stripes, there. Somehow I don't think we'll hear AA opponents using that counter argument in front of the Supreme Court, but you keep trying.


I'm pretty sure if it were your white brothers and sisters who'd been trampled underfoot by decades of slavery, segregation and institutional bias you wouldn't think affirmative action adds to the injustice. Considering how you're lighting the world on fire b/c a few of your precious whites might get passed by affirmative action, I think it's safe to say you'd be bitching and moaning like no other if the shoe were on the other foot. What a bunch of nonsense. And the only ones who deny verifiable statistical data and testimonials that attest to the historical plight of blacks as they relate to today's conditions are sheltered and bigoted individuals or internet tough guys, hiding behind really lame elementary arguments, making the other side readdress the same salient points over and over again. It's one thing to argue that the societal effects of racism have begun to taper off, it's another level of bizareness to dismiss it all as delusional b.s.

Socioeconomic status and racial identity are going to be very correspondent factors, so I'm sure you wouldn't like that. As far as judging applicants on a case by case basis, that's fine, if we did that more in a honest fashion there'd be more minorities admitted b/c their social conditions would be factored in, but it'll never be so, and even it were it'd still a fallible process as there's no way other than affirmative action to prevent racial bias from the review boards that are inevitably going to be aged, white, eruditical intellectuals, who're influenced by system money and power.

More Americans View Blacks As Racist Than Whites, Hispanics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

There is a huge ideological difference on this topic. Among conservative Americans, 49% consider most blacks racist, and only 12% see most whites that way. Among liberal voters, 27% see most white Americans as racist, and 21% say the same about black Americans.

From a partisan perspective, 49% of Republicans see most black Americans as racist, along with 36% of unaffiliated adults and 29% of Democrats.

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.

Among white adults, 10% think most white Americans are racist; 38% believe most blacks are racist, and 17% say most Hispanics are racist.

Overall, just 30% of all Americans now rate race relations in the United States as good or excellent. Fourteen percent (14%) describe them as poor. Twenty-nine percent (29%) think race relations are getting better, while 32% believe they are getting worse. Thirty-five percent (35%) feel they are staying about the same.

These figures reflect more pessimism than was found in April when 42% gave race relations positive marks and 39% said race relations were improving. However, the April number reflected all-time highs while the current numbers are more consistent with the general attitudes of recent years.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 1-2, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently killed a key portion of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional and sent a lawsuit challenging the University of Texas’ use of race as a factor in admissions back to the appellate court level for further review. Most Americans believe affirmative action admissions policies discriminate against whites, as the lawsuit argues, and think it’s better for colleges and universities to accept the most qualified students.

This is consistent with public resistance to all special preferences. Only 30% think it’s fair for colleges and universities to give preferences to children of large donors. Just 38% think it is fair for the children of previous students to have a special advantage in the admissions process.

Following those decisions and a big ruling on same-sex marriage, public approval of the U.S. Supreme Court has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded in more than nine years of polling.

Blacks are slightly more optimistic about the current state of race relations in American than whites and Hispanics are. But 37% of blacks and 38% of Hispanics believe those relations are getting worse, compared to 29% of whites.

Liberals are more confident than conservatives that race relations are getting better.

Forty-five percent (45%) of voters believe the U.S. justice system is fair to most Americans, but just 34% think it is fair to poor Americans. Forty-five percent (45%) consider the justice system fair to black and Hispanic Americans.

Most voters continue to believe the U.S. economy is fair to women, blacks and Hispanics but are now evenly divided when asked if it’s fair to lower-income Americans. However, they still think all four groups are treated better than the middle class.
–-----------

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...s_as_racist_tha n_whites_hispanics

Affirmative Action was started to keep people from being passed over for jobs, Not pushed in to them.

Even the heads of the black communitys say that hand outs are nothng but crutches that don't benifit the black community.
We must stop making excuses for our people and get them up by other means then pushing them to the head of the line.

They are right, you just can't keep lowing the bar to fit some people.

Affirmative action is a joke. If anything, make it about economic status. Alot of disadvantaged white people out there.