Clearly you've never gone to college. If you cite wikipedia as a source, you deserve to have your research ripped up in front of your face.
Maybe you should try and live in the real world, instead of attempting to use the internet to prove crackpot beliefs and theories.
well, this has escalated rather quickly
Moderator's Warning: The baiting stops NOW. People need to talk about the subject. Who does or doesn't have hteir hand in the sand isn't the topic. Whether or not someone is being civil or staying on topic is not the topic. If you feel like someone is causing an issue either report it, ignore it, or at the worst tie it into a post actually primarily talking about the TOPIC. Any further baiting will result in further action
2.) what is foolish is not understanding how references (usually you learn this in highschool) works and wiki has them at the bottom and they link to LAW and GOVERNMENT sites
i also listed separate LAW and GOVERNMENT sites and when i have time i can link court cases that also prove you wrong lol
3.) says the guy that doesnt understand facts and how links/reference work LOL
i have two degrees thanks
4.) wiki is a fine source as long as the there are factual reference to go with it, you lose again lol
5.) its funny you are so upset about being proven factually wrong with facts
let me know when you need further educated, ill gladly use facts to prove you wrong again.
So I'll ask you again, is it taking place or is it not?
As a last resort? I'm not the one who has failed to make a coherent argument on the matter. You are. You have yet to actually state your position on whether or not affirmative action has a place in graduate school acceptance. Your position has been that discrepancies in MCAT and GPA are not due to racial preferance. So naturally my counterargument is that you shouldn't have a problem with eliminating race as a factor in college acceptance if you don't think that minorities are being held a different standard. Thats not putting words in your mouth. That is your argument, that they aren't being held to different standards.
To which I say fine, then there shouldn't be any problem with banning different standards, now should there?
And I'm saying, what the admissions officers want to see is diversity rather then actual academic performance. Diversity for diversity's sake is affirmative action. I'm not making an assumption. I'm showing you facts. When race is banned from being a factor and standards are forced to be colorblind, minority enrollment falls. THEREFORE it is not an assumption to say that race is a factor in enrollment. It is a fact.
Red herring games? Either you are childish or purposely trying to move the goal posts. This entire discussion has been about minorities being held to a different standard. It is an important question to know whether or not you support separate standards for graduate admissions. If you do not support such separate standards, then I want to know why you continue to argue against a race neutral admissions policy for graduate students. Now stop acting like a child and state your position.
Black America vs. Obama?
Though 10 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, African-Americans are 18 percent of U.S. government workers. They are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of the State Department, 37 percent of Department of Education employees and 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the employees at the Government Printing Office and 82 percent at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.
You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
It's like you're dreaming of Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.