OdgenTugbyGlub
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
But if they're qualified, why is everyone making a fuss? They would have been admitted anyway. They implicitly can't be qualified, otherwise, we'd have no need for AA!
Isn't that the whole point behind AA? Blacks live in poor areas, where their schools are "****", so why aren't they underqualified? That's why AA exists, to promote them in the lottery of life, to paraphrase. If that's not why AA exists, please tell us what else it's there for?
getinvolved said:I think I know where your logic lies when you mkae a statement like this. It can difficult to understand how a policy that favors perhaps a less qualified candidate simply b/c of their race. But, it is also importnat to keep in mind the fact that due to years of oppression, many people who benefit from this policy have started out three steps behind due the limited opportunites offered to them. I think that like any program, affirmative action has some major flaws, but I also think that it's intention must be kept in mind as well.
Affirmative action needs reforms, but calling it "institutionalized racism" disregards it's main objectives.
MrFungus420 said:It's main objective is to give some preferencial treatment based soley on their race. That is racism, pure and simple.
If people want to rise above, they need to realize that they have to work. Giving them a handout just because of the colour of their skin is just telling them that they need the help because they can't do it on their own.
There also needs to be a change of attitude that can only be brought about by the parents. There has to be a change in the attitude that if you get ahead due to hard work and academics, you are not a sell-out to your race. It seems like the only acceptable ways for someone to make something of themselves is to either be an athlete or a music star.
So instead of fixing the problem of rich people getting into colleges you want to get minorities into colleges?Tell me...does anybody here know how George Bush got into Yale, yet was rejected at the University of Texas?
Technically it's not, since whites can seek relief under AA if they have been discriminated against based on their race... good luck finding a lawyer to defend that argument though!alex said:Affirmative Action is not equality under the law. It is a violation of our 14th Amendment.
TheBigC said:Technically it's not, since whites can seek relief under AA if they have been discriminated against based on their race... good luck finding a lawyer to defend that argument though!
There are millions of examples of someone's ancestors doing something, it's stupid, it has nothing to do with the individual. I could easily say that I have ancestors who fought in a war, so I deserve veteran support, or one of my ancestors committed murder and I should be punished.The argument of giving blacks something because of what happened 200 years ago is bullshit.
That may be the common definition, but it's not the legal definition, which is all that would be taken into account if you were to argue that AA policies violated the 14th Amendment. Here is the definition as given by the Department of Labor:MrFungus420 said:Technically, it is. According to the legal dictionary (http://dictionary.law.com/)
"affirmative action
n. the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority."
So, it is obviously a racist policy, and, as such, violates the policy of equal protection under the law.
-Demosthenes- said:There are millions of examples of someone's ancestors doing something, it's stupid, it has nothing to do with the individual. I could easily say that I have ancestors who fought in a war, so I deserve veteran support, or one of my ancestors committed murder and I should be punished.
TheBigC said:That may be the common definition, but it's not the legal definition, which is all that would be taken into account if you were to argue that AA policies violated the 14th Amendment. Here is the definition as given by the Department of Labor:
"The Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforces the Executive Order 11246, as amended; Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended and the affirmative action provisions (Section 4212) of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act, as amended. Taken together, these laws ban discrimination and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or status as a Vietnam era or special disabled veteran." (emphasis added)
It's not about diversity, but it has been mutated by employers and some people to mean that. EO and AA were meant to level the playing field and they've been distorted to promote certain groups instead. This is why you would be able to seek relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and any other original legally-binding document pertaining to the topic because in order to remain Constitutional they had to protect everyone equally *in theory*. They have been interpreted and extrapolated on to mean lots of things since then, but the original legal definition protects everyone.
Here's the full legal definition, I can't sum it up in a couple of sentences: US Codes Title 42, Table of Contents
This is the chapter of the US Code that lays out the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it protects *everyone*. But again, good luck finding a lawyer that will take your case as a Euro-American claiming discrimination!
nkgupta80 said:but who do you think the colleges would and should want more. The kid with the 4.0 and the 1600 who's lived his whole life in a sheltered suburbian environment, or the kid with the 3.7 and 1450 who has lived in 5 different countries around the world and has a diverse cultural background?
So instead of Jonny being an 3.8 GPA, 1400 SAT student, now he's a BLACK 3.8 GPA, 1400 SAT student. Dr. King would be proud.Turtle dude said:I have no problem with "affirmative action" when it means taking into account REAL obstacles or using other than pure GPA/SAT scores to judge people.
Affirmative Blacktion.
All Affirmative Action (i.e. race preferences) is good for is creating a diversity of competence. It places unfit blacks in positions they don't belong in, just for the sake of getting more black faces in the schools. If everyone can't come to a consensus that this "thinking" (for lack of a better term) is horridly flawed, I shudder to think what kind of genius is ok with it.
-Demosthenes- said:So instead of Jonny being an 3.8 GPA, 1400 SAT student, now he's a BLACK 3.8 GPA, 1400 SAT student. Dr. King would be proud.
Help the poor and the disadvantaged, not the people with more of a chemical in their skin.
OdgenTugbyGlub said:Clever clever. Real funny too.....
Provide me proof that the students accepted under AA are unfit to attend the university they were let into. If you can do that for me, I would be opposed to AA, but I have seen no evidence of this. I see enough dumb-**** college students who, IMO are unfit to attend college anywhere, at the University my father teaches at, and guess what, they're mostly white.
OdgenTugbyGlub said:Provide me proof that the students accepted under AA are unfit to attend the university they were let into. If you can do that for me, I would be opposed to AA, but I have seen no evidence of this. I see enough dumb-**** college students who, IMO are unfit to attend college anywhere, at the University my father teaches at, and guess what, they're mostly white.
I'm glad, sry if I judged you post too quickly.Turtledude said:I think we agree.
Racial tendencies, existent or not, should not be used to judge individuals.NN said:Everyone knows that white people do better than black people in school..
-Demosthenes- said:Racial tendencies, existent or not, should not be used to judge individuals.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?