Affirmative Action

Blackdog said:

Keeping it real huh? Chris Rock said something about that...

"Keeping it real... real stupid." - Chris Rock

You don't know anything about my struggles or my people.

It is not helping blacks, or our cause. You can continue to support "niggaz" all you want. I will support the fine black people.

Click to expand...

Oooo...snap.

TurtleDude said:

There is a well known harvard law professor who applied to two law schools-the two top rated schools

he put black on one and the other he left blank by accident. He got into the former and turned down by the latter--however, they later admitted him when they found out he was black. He stayed with Harvard though and didn't attend Yale

pretty damning -but for race he was not qualified

He's a big advocate of affirmative racism btw

Click to expand...

Not surprising at all. My poor little brother (13) has his heart set on MIT for their astrophysics program. I don't even know what to tell him. I want him to try for it, but even though he get's straight As I know the odds are against him. That's why this AA stuff is crap. You shouldn't have to worry about your chances because you're white any more than because you're black.

i've been thru this thread reading the white posters expressing concern that their white advantage is no longer as absolute as it once was
to salve their wounds from personally underperforming they want to insist that minorities gained an advantage they did not deserve, as if that were the only way that their minority counterparts outperformed them. lame excuses
they insist that the minorities who benefitted from AA were less qualified than their majority counterparts. one would think there would be reams of data proving that underqualification - if it were true ... yet, not one cite has been offered showing that such underqualification was present
if you could not make it thru law school, or on an athletic squad, don't blame the persons of color who had the right stuff - just because you didn't
man up

justabubba said:

i've been thru this thread reading the white posters expressing concern that their white advantage is no longer as absolute as it once was
to salve their wounds from personally underperforming they want to insist that minorities gained an advantage they did not deserve, as if that were the only way that their minority counterparts outperformed them. lame excuses
they insist that the minorities who benefitted from AA were less qualified than their majority counterparts. one would think there would be reams of data proving that underqualification - if it were true ... yet, not one cite has been offered showing that such underqualification was present
if you could not make it thru law school, or on an athletic squad, don't blame the persons of color who had the right stuff - just because you didn't
man up

Click to expand...

This is such garbage...

#1 Had nothing at all to do with whites wanting an advantage.
#2 Had nothing to do with failing anything. Has to do with being passed up because of race, NOT qualifications.

You know what? I am not even going to answer the rest of this unadulterated crap. In that end that is all your argument amounts to in the real world.

justabubba said:

i've been thru this thread reading the white posters expressing concern that their white advantage is no longer as absolute as it once was
to salve their wounds from personally underperforming they want to insist that minorities gained an advantage they did not deserve, as if that were the only way that their minority counterparts outperformed them. lame excuses
they insist that the minorities who benefitted from AA were less qualified than their majority counterparts. one would think there would be reams of data proving that underqualification - if it were true ... yet, not one cite has been offered showing that such underqualification was present
if you could not make it thru law school, or on an athletic squad, don't blame the persons of color who had the right stuff - just because you didn't
man up

Click to expand...

You do realize that one of the people arguing AGAINST AA is black, right? And a few of the others are women?

If what you said was true, and the people who benefited from AA were truly more qualified... then AA is quite unnecessary.

AA is racism and sexism written into law. Mandated sexism. Mandated racism. The ONLY reason someone should be hired is because of their qualifications, NOT because of the color of their skin or because they have tits. If they cannot get the job on qualifications alone, then they don't deserve the job. No government should EVER tell an employer they have to hire someone because that person's skin is a little darker, or because they have a vagina.

I don't know what is worse, being a victim of affirmative action (I was turned down for a constitutional law teaching position despite being in the top 25% of my class at a top law school in favor of a black female who was bottom half of her class at a schoool currently ranked about 56th in the USA because I was told the ABA was worried this local law school needed a "black female" increase) or having a couple friends who are Black who really earned what they have yet are seen by the ignorant as not as good an attorney as some of us who work with them because they "must have been given breaks"

justabubba said:

if you could not make it thru law school, or on an athletic squad, don't blame the persons of color who had the right stuff - just because you didn't
man up

Click to expand...

I think you are confused. Its not being allowed into a law school because you are white while people with far lower qualifications are getting in because they are Black


and the year I applied to law schools not a single white was accepted into Harvard or Yale Law with the scores that the BEST QUALIFIED Black applicant had

did you know Obama didn't even make HONORS (3.2-3.4) at Columbia yet got into Harvard Law? When I was applying to law schools (several years before Obama and the competition has only increased) we were told when we met with their dean of admissions when she visited my college that for us (white and asian males were in the group) we better have at least a 3.75 with a top 2% board score to have even a 50-50 chance of admission. IF you had an amazing resume in terms of extracurriculars (like say being a chess grandmaster or a published author) you might get in with a 3.6 (which was about the cut off for magna cum laude)

it would be like a white boy who can only run a 10.5 hundred meter being chosen to run on the 4X100 relay in the world games instead of a Black guy who runs a 9.9 because the USA hasn't had a white 100M runner in years and whites are "underrepresented" on the US track team's sprinting squad

TurtleDude said:

I don't know what is worse, being a victim of affirmative action (I was turned down for a constitutional law teaching position despite being in the top 25% of my class at a top law school in favor of a black female who was bottom half of her class at a schoool currently ranked about 56th in the USA because I was told the ABA was worried this local law school needed a "black female" increase) or having a couple friends who are Black who really earned what they have yet are seen by the ignorant as not as good an attorney as some of us who work with them because they "must have been given breaks"

Click to expand...

one look at that sentence and it is obvious why you were declined for the teaching position

TurtleDude said:

I think you are confused. Its not being allowed into a law school because you are white while people with far lower qualifications are getting in because they are Black


and the year I applied to law schools not a single white was accepted into Harvard or Yale Law with the scores that the BEST QUALIFIED Black applicant had

did you know Obama didn't even make HONORS (3.2-3.4) at Columbia yet got into Harvard Law? When I was applying to law schools (several years before Obama and the competition has only increased) we were told when we met with their dean of admissions when she visited my college that for us (white and asian males were in the group) we better have at least a 3.75 with a top 2% board score to have even a 50-50 chance of admission. IF you had an amazing resume in terms of extracurriculars (like say being a chess grandmaster or a published author) you might get in with a 3.6 (which was about the cut off for magna cum laude)

it would be like a white boy who can only run a 10.5 hundred meter being chosen to run on the 4X100 relay in the world games instead of a Black guy who runs a 9.9 because the USA hasn't had a white 100M runner in years and whites are "underrepresented" on the US track team's sprinting squad

Click to expand...

any attorney worth his salt would not make the case for the opposition. and yet you have done so
thank you for pointing out that Obama benefitted from AA and recognizing how much he has accomplished, which would not otherwise have precipitated but for the application of AA principles
from your posts, it is clear you are the last person to criticize someone with ostensibly weak skills being accepted into law school

Redress said:

I don't think it is needed today. I think at one time it was simply to make up the gap difference between different groups, but in today's context is unnecessary and breeds hostility between those different groups.

Click to expand...

Do you say that it is not necessary because discrimination no longer exists in American society, or because you believe it is counter-productive in tackling the discrimination that exists? What do you believe has changed to make it no longer necessary or useful?

rivrrat said:

You do realize that one of the people arguing AGAINST AA is black, right? And a few of the others are women?

Click to expand...

i am a white guy arguing for the application of AA principles. what's your point?

If what you said was true, and the people who benefited from AA were truly more qualified... then AA is quite unnecessary.

Click to expand...

that would be correct if merit and not skin pigmentation was the benchmark used in making selections. unfortunately, that is not yet the circumstance
and you got it wrong. those AA applicants do NOT have to be more qualified they have to be as qualified as their majority counterparts to be selected. ethnicity becomes the tiebreaker when the qualifications are the same

AA is racism and sexism written into law. Mandated sexism. Mandated racism.

Click to expand...

actually, i don't disagree. chief justice roberts - whose quote was posted earlier - noted that we should not address racism by making selections based on race. and i agree. it would be much better if AA eligibility was based on economic disadvantage. that middle aged black woman with a $5 net worth would likely participate instead of that average middle aged white woman with a $42,000 net worth. but the black woman with substantial net worth would not qualify while the poor white woman would in an AA system focused on overcoming poverty instead of racial bias. blacks and hispanics would disproportionately qualify for AA and whites and asians would be disproportionately under-represented in the AA program. but it would not qualify those who are entitled to AA advantages becase of ethnicity
however, until our congressional leaders figure that out, the present AA system addresses - in a more controversial way - that racial disadvantage that blacks and latinos continue to experience

the ONLY reason someone should be hired is because of their qualifications, NOT because of the color of their skin or because they have tits. If they cannot get the job on qualifications alone, then they don't deserve the job. No government should EVER tell an employer they have to hire someone because that person's skin is a little darker, or because they have a vagina.

Click to expand...

and in the good ole white boy system the good ole white boys hire other good ole white boys. the racism is perpetuated if we do nothing to address it

justabubba said:

i am a white guy arguing for the application of AA principles. what's your point?


that would be correct if merit and not skin pigmentation was the benchmark used in making selections. unfortunately, that is not yet the circumstance
and you got it wrong. those AA applicants do NOT have to be more qualified they have to be as qualified as their majority counterparts to be selected. ethnicity becomes the tiebreaker when the qualifications are the same


actually, i don't disagree. chief justice roberts - whose quote was posted earlier - noted that we should not address racism by making selections based on race. and i agree. it would be much better if AA eligibility was based on economic disadvantage. that middle aged black woman with a $5 net worth would likely participate instead of that average middle aged white woman with a $42,000 net worth. but the black woman with substantial net worth would not qualify while the poor white woman would in an AA system focused on overcoming poverty instead of racial bias. blacks and hispanics would disproportionately qualify for AA and whites and asians would be disproportionately under-represented in the AA program. but it would not qualify those who are entitled to AA advantages becase of ethnicity
however, until our congressional leaders figure that out, the present AA system addresses - in a more controversial way - that racial disadvantage that blacks and latinos continue to experience


and in the good ole white boy system the good ole white boys hire other good ole white boys. the racism is perpetuated if we do nothing to address it

Click to expand...

I almost entirely agree with you. AA, or Positive Discrimination as it is known over here, should be a tool, just one of several, that society uses to ensure equality of opportunity is a reality and not just a vacuous slogan.

Economic disadvantage is the single most relevant factor in preventing the most talented and most committed from realising their potential, within the education arena and employment market. Transferring AA programmes from their current gender and racial bases to an economic one would serve to strengthen public support for it and still ensure greater diversity within higher education and more generally in the ranks of the upper professional levels of corporations and organisations.

If society cannot ensure that kids of all backgrounds get a broadly equivalent early-years education (and that should be one of any government's top priorities) then programmes to attempt to level the playing field further along the line should be welcomed and extended. Giving preference to wealthy women or members of ethnic groups doesn't solve the problem at all. What it does is create economic inequalities and undeserving elites within the groups that the programmes are seeking to assist.

Since affirmative action does not help Asian Americans, and often actually hinders them, then any arguments based upon race need to be tossed out. It isn't really about race at all, but about preconceptions.

Self fulfilling prophesies are funny things, since the more people believe in them, the more they become true.

Kali said:

The same could be said of some of the Amish folks. I do not see people crying and bitching about them.

Click to expand...

I don't see the Amish sitting on welfare and crying about how abused they are either. It's one thing to partake in a primitive culture and keep quiet about it. It's another to stand on a soap box on the street corner and scream that it's everyone else's fault that you're failing.

justabubba said:

and in the good ole white boy system the good ole white boys hire other good ole white boys. the racism is perpetuated if we do nothing to address it

Click to expand...

AA perpetuates racism and sexism. It IS racism and sexism. It addresses nothing at all.

Gardener said:

Self fulfilling prophesies are funny things, since the more people believe in them, the more they become true.

Click to expand...

Funny? How so? "The more people believe in them, the more they become true". Isn't that how they are supposed to work? If they didn't work that way, how would they become self-fulfilling?

justabubba said:

i am a white guy arguing for the application of AA principles. what's your point?

Click to expand...

We're minorities saying, "We don't want your ****ing help. We're quite capable of achieving what we want without your insulting training wheels."


So do please stop insulting every damn minority person in the country by telling all of us that we're just not good enough to do it on our own and we need a "white guy's" pity in order to achieve anything in life.

Andalublue said:

I almost entirely agree with you. AA, or Positive Discrimination as it is known over here, should be a tool, just one of several, that society uses to ensure equality of opportunity is a reality and not just a vacuous slogan.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. There wouldn't be widespread anti-AA sentiment if it actually promoted "equality of opportunity". The only way it fits that moniker is that it is mandated by racism-based law that you have to have a minority around, "just because". That's why we have terms like "token". Because of AA, I often walk around work and wonder if the black co-worker I see is there because of his credentials or because of his skin color. Affirmative Action has an innate nature to perpetuate racism for exactly that reason. This was not Dr. King's dream. Not even close.

Economic disadvantage is the single most relevant factor in preventing the most talented and most committed from realising their potential, within the education arena and employment market. Transferring AA programmes from their current gender and racial bases to an economic one would serve to strengthen public support for it and still ensure greater diversity within higher education and more generally in the ranks of the upper professional levels of corporations and organisations.

Click to expand...

It may make it harder, but not impossible by any stretch. Were that true, movies like Lean On Me and Stand And Deliver (both great movies, by the way) would not be based on true stories. Anything worth having is not easy. Granted, I should take that view into my relationship world, but that's a whole other ball of wax. There are so many opportunities out there for everyone. Hell, it's almost to the point where you can't get flip for a college scholarship if you're a white male. And you know what? That's fine with me. My demographic isn't the concern. It's for these ghetto blacks who think the only way to be successful is to be a baller, a rapper, or a dealer. That mentality is what has to be broken, or the cycle of failure keeps going and going.

If society cannot ensure that kids of all backgrounds get a broadly equivalent early-years education (and that should be one of any government's top priorities) then programmes to attempt to level the playing field further along the line should be welcomed and extended. Giving preference to wealthy women or members of ethnic groups doesn't solve the problem at all. What it does is create economic inequalities and undeserving elites within the groups that the programmes are seeking to assist.

Click to expand...

I'm not against adequate education, but I am against equivalent. Financially successful parents should have a right to a higher level of education for their children, be they white, black, green or red. Children are not equal; some have a strong desire to get good grades, prepare for a future, and envision a plan to succeed. Some would rather just screw around, party, and get Ds to pass. Giving them equvialent education is a complete mismanagement of scarce resources.

Vouchers would fix that problem. Money for advantages to those who care about school and success, and a bunch of metal detectors and apathetic teachers for those who just don't care. I'm not about to force anyone who doesn't want to give a crap to do so.

justabubba said:

one look at that sentence and it is obvious why you were declined for the teaching position

Click to expand...

LOL-that is rather stupid. and this is a chat board Nemo, not a law review article or the Yale Poltical Union's Gardner-White Debate Championship.

The fact is, there is no RATIONAL argument for affirmative action as it is now practiced but then again, the people supporting it are Emoters not thinkers for the most part.

TurtleDude said:

LOL-that is rather stupid. and this is a chat board Nemo, not a law review article or the Yale Poltical Union's Gardner-White Debate Championship.

The fact is, there is no RATIONAL argument for affirmative action as it is now practiced but then again, the people supporting it are Emoters not thinkers for the most part.

Click to expand...

Yeah, whatev.

I would have picked you for the teaching position. :2wave:

justabubba said:

any attorney worth his salt would not make the case for the opposition. and yet you have done so
thank you for pointing out that Obama benefitted from AA and recognizing how much he has accomplished, which would not otherwise have precipitated but for the application of AA principles
from your posts, it is clear you are the last person to criticize someone with ostensibly weak skills being accepted into law school

Click to expand...

What exactly did Obama really accomplish on his own? being a puppet for a corrupt dem machine? A harvard law review president who was not able to have an article published in the law review? a guy who didn't clerk for the supreme court when his race and presidency would have guaranteed an offer from one of the liberal justices? a "lecturer" at Chicago when most HLR Presidents went in as tenure track professors.

for someone who wants to try to counter my logical arguments with infantile pesonal insults--you ought to establish what sort of trade and "skoolin" you have that puts you in a position to utter such rants

Kelzie said:

Yeah, whatev.

I would have picked you for the teaching position. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Several of the students in question ended up clerking in the office I am now a part of. They said the same thing--she only lasted a couple years:mrgreen:

The good news is that I make far more and have "tenure" so to say

But thanks (weren't you thinking of Law School at one time?)

Gipper said:

There are so many opportunities out there for everyone. Hell, it's almost to the point where you can't get flip for a college scholarship if you're a white male. And you know what? That's fine with me. My demographic isn't the concern. It's for these ghetto blacks who think the only way to be successful is to be a baller, a rapper, or a dealer. That mentality is what has to be broken, or the cycle of failure keeps going and going.

Click to expand...

If you live in a society where the education you're given (and told to feel oh-so-grateful for) leaves you with not the slightest chance of making a decent college on academics, and a society that showers ball-players, rappers and drug dealers with more money than a teacher, nurse or cop will ever see, then who wouldn't say 'screw education, let's make money from what we've got'?

I'm not against adequate education, but I am against equivalent. Financially successful parents should have a right to a higher level of education for their children, be they white, black, green or red. Children are not equal; some have a strong desire to get good grades, prepare for a future, and envision a plan to succeed.

Click to expand...

So where's that commitment to equality of opportunity you were talking about at the beginning of this post? And what do you deem to be an 'adequate' education for kids whose parents aren't rich? Do you want the key determinant of educational success to be the size of the parental pocket? Either you believe in equality of opportunity or you don't. There's no such thing as relative equality. It's an either/or equation; equal or unequal.

TurtleDude said:

Several of the students in question ended up clerking in the office I am now a part of. They said the same thing--she only lasted a couple years:mrgreen:

The good news is that I make far more and have "tenure" so to say

But thanks (weren't you thinking of Law School at one time?)

Click to expand...

I was. Still wonder some times. I think it would suit my personality, but the price and the length of law school is turning me off right now.

I was mostly just sucking up so you would go easy on me next time we debate.:mrgreen:

Andalublue said:

If you live in a society where the education you're given (and told to feel oh-so-grateful for) leaves you with not the slightest chance of making a decent college on academics, and a society that showers ball-players, rappers and drug dealers with more money than a teacher, nurse or cop will ever see, then who wouldn't say 'screw education, let's make money from what we've got'?

Click to expand...

Luckily that's not the society we live in. If you make decent (above a 3.0) grades in any high school, you will get in to a state university.

If money's what they're after, they should choose a different profession. There's plenty that pay well, if you want to work at it.