Majority of Ohio voters would now rather have Bush back in office instead of Obama

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Fair enough. It may have changed over time, or it may vary regionally. Yet the stereotype of the "egghead" nerd is a very common one in society. I really don't see how anyone can pretend it doesn't exist.

- wolf

I would argue that the egghead nerds are a subset of nerds who are actually admired. Think of Bill Gates and Peyton Manning. Both are wildly successful in their field. Would you say Bill Gates is substantially less popular among whites than Peyton Manning?

Now think of Kobe Bryant and Clarence Thomas. Any contest in popularity among blacks? Any black eggheads you can name who among blacks ranks in the same quintile of popularity as Kobe, or Michael Jordan, or Tiger Woods? Actually the closest I can think of is Barack Obama. His greatest accomplishment to me is actually helping to dispel this idea among blacks that smart isn't cool, education is for fools or "actin' white" - but how popular was he among blacks when he was president of the Harvard Law Review? The reaction to intelligence and particularly to education between whites and blacks is not at all comparable, not nearly as close even as between whites and Asians (who are clearly the champs among the races, to the extent race can be said to be an actual thing rather than a convenient human construct.)
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I would argue that the egghead nerds are a subset of nerds who are actually admired. Think of Bill Gates and Peyton Manning. Both are wildly successful in their field. Would you say Bill Gates is substantially less popular among whites than Peyton Manning?

Now think of Kobe Bryant and Clarence Thomas. Any contest in popularity among blacks? Any black eggheads you can name who among blacks ranks in the same quintile of popularity as Kobe, or Michael Jordan, or Tiger Woods? Actually the closest I can think of is Barack Obama. His greatest accomplishment to me is actually helping to dispel this idea among blacks that smart isn't cool, education is for fools or "actin' white" - but how popular was he among blacks when he was president of the Harvard Law Review? The reaction to intelligence and particularly to education between whites and blacks is not at all comparable, not nearly as close even as between whites and Asians (who are clearly the champs among the races, to the extent race can be said to be an actual thing rather than a convenient human construct.)

I think you're mistaken about why a tiny, select group of eggheads are admired by whites. Bill Gates is admired for being uber wealthy. We are a society who admires wealth. It isn't his intelligence that garners him admiration. Now, do you really think Mr. Gates was admired by most of his peers in high school, long before he became wealthy?

Look, my daughter is highly bright according to every test she has ever taken, but honestly she doesn't give a crap about anything but how she looks and her social life. And she's going into her 3rd year at a fairly prestigious university. Her attitude is exactly what I describe, and this is the attitude of all her friends, who were the "popular" crowd in HS. Getting good grades, even being valedictorian, is not a stigma. It is *acting* smart that is the stigma. And this was definitely the attitude of a significant percentage of kids when I went to school 25 years ago.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

So far as the way whites view intelligence versus blacks, who are the most popular and admired celebrities among whites? It sure as hell isn't our intellectuals or our nobel laureates, that's for sure. Nope, it's our actors, models, entertainers and athletes. Same story, different culture.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I think you're mistaken about why a tiny, select group of eggheads are admired by whites. Bill Gates is admired for being uber wealthy. We are a society who admires wealth. It isn't his intelligence that garners him admiration. Now, do you really think Mr. Gates was admired by most of his peers in high school, long before he became wealthy?

Look, my daughter is highly bright according to every test she has ever taken, but honestly she doesn't give a crap about anything but how she looks and her social life. And she's going into her 3rd year at a fairly prestigious university. Her attitude is exactly what I describe, and this is the attitude of all her friends, who were the "popular" crowd in HS. Getting good grades, even being valedictorian, is not a stigma. It is *acting* smart that is the stigma. And this was definitely the attitude of a significant percentage of kids when I went to school 25 years ago.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

So far as the way whites view intelligence versus blacks, who are the most popular and admired celebrities among whites? It sure as hell isn't our intellectuals or our nobel laureates, that's for sure. Nope, it's our actors, models, entertainers and athletes. Same story, different culture.

- wolf

I think only the Asians as a culture really appreciate the right qualities - intelligence, hard work, achievement, family, sacrifice. But it's worse among blacks on average, and has a worse impact on blacks because on average blacks start with less wealth, influence and connections. George W. Bush for instance would have been hard pressed not to succeed; Barack Obama could have easily failed to succeed, despite being half white and having money on his mother's side. I certainly would not argue that whites appreciate the correct virtues in our culture, but as one of those who stood out - advanced classes, 99.5% achievement tests, and such - I never felt shunned or oppressed by anyone growing up. But then my grades weren't particularly good anyway (outside of the very advanced courses) so perhaps my experience was non-typical.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,507
136
Perhaps it would help if you shared some examples of Obama demonstrating his high intelligence.

Becoming a constitutional law professor, a United States Senator, and President of the United States. Those three accomplishments would seem to put him slightly above average.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
It would be interesting to see what the poll results would be going back several presidents. Clinton v Obama, Bush I v Obama, Clinton v Bush II, Clinton v Bush I, etc.

That would tell us whether they were just angry Republicans who would be happy with anybody in office other than a Democrat, or whether it actually is based off of the perception of the economy during a particular administration.

What I find most telling is that it's not just repubs that are very angry and unhappy -- that would be expected and predictable. The fact that independents are also heavily tilting away from a very popular president (when he was elected) is more of a surprise.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
So many horrible arguments, but this one jumped out at me. If I vote for Sarah Palin for president for the sole reason that I think she's pretty, that would be very superficial and undoubtedly the "incorrect" way to choose to give someone access to the nuclear launch codes. Sorry if I believe intelligence, knowledge of the various issues, and an even temperament are the best qualities to look for in a potential leader. And I believe that anyone NOT looking for those qualities (among others), are coming to their decision improperly. Sorry if that's "elitist".

That's a strawman of course. What about if I see someone giving a speech and say "I don't trust that guy, something just isn't right about him". It's superficial, but it's no worse than someone who listens to the same guy and believes everything he says, is well informed, and then finds out later that it was all a pack of lies. Each person has their own way of deciding who to vote for. Some are obviously better than others, but when faced with a situation where a majority of people hold a different opinion, an elitist will brush aside their opinion as ill informed or stupid. "We don't want your health care debacle": "oh, they just need more education on the matter".
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
So basic civics, i.e. how our government is structured and operates, American history, and basic economics are all a bunch of useless "poly sci crap?" All you are doing is expressing the attitude that leads to a populace unable to make informed decisions. Don't get me wrong, I believe in one man, one vote. I even believe people should be free to make stupid decisions. That doesn't make them not stupid, and it doesn't mean it is wrong to point out the stupidity.

You're right about one thing. People do not care to learn much of anything in this culture. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't really a failing of the school system because you can't teach people who don't want to learn. Righties like to point out that black people have a poor attitude about learning because in that culture, learning means "acting white." But they're over-looking the caucasion version - that learning makes you a dork and a social outcast. Our children do not pick this attitude up out of a vacuum. It is endemic to a highly materialistic culture which constantly conveys the message that it is how you look and who you associate with, not what you know, that is important. Heck, even our genetically "smart" students, the ones who make decent grades, only learn enough to pass the test and then it flies out of their heads because they just don't care. And your response - that it is useless anyway.

Congratulations, you're a product of the very same anti-intellectual culture that produces people who vote for candidates because they say "you betcha" and that gives them a warm fuzzy because it means they are "ordinary people" just like you and me. Nevermind that the candidate's knowledge of foreign and domestic policy couldn't fill a thimble. She talks like me!

- wolf

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never witnessed anyone around me looking down on someone for learning too much. They are called dorks and social outcasts when they lack social skills. Social skills =/= wanting to learn or being smart. Some of the smartest and most driven-to-learn kids in my school were also the "cool kids". I value education a lot (I have 3 masters degrees myself), no clue where you're coming from with this "culture of anti-intellectualism" nonsense.

Further, intelligence and intellectual prowess doesn't necessarily mean you know anything about civics or politics. One of my best developers is absolutely brilliant in a multitude of ways, but I'm certain he could not tell you how the US congress is split up in two houses and how they interact. He just doesn't care about that stuff. When it comes time to vote, he listens to the candidates and forms an opinion. Is his opinion somehow less valid than someone else's? Is he "anti-intellectual"?

We got down this track in the thread because elitists, when faced with the fact that Ohioans largely would prefer to have Bush back over Obama, immediately jumped to the conclusion that Ohioans are stupid, anti-intellectual, backwards etc etc. Of course they have nothing to back it up, and I've provided links to the contrary, but that's how elitists think: if someone doesn't agree with my opinion, they must be somehow inferior.
 
Last edited:

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Becoming a constitutional law professor, a United States Senator, and President of the United States. Those three accomplishments would seem to put him slightly above average.

Those are definitely great achievements (well, the second, and third for sure). :thumbsup:
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Becoming a constitutional law professor, a United States Senator, and President of the United States. Those three accomplishments would seem to put him slightly above average.
Agreed, at least for the second two. (Constitutional law professor all too often seems to be community organizer with a law degree, awarded more for ideological purity than for knowledge.) But then Obama has to be evaluated by Washington standards. Remember that George Bush and Jimmy Carter were both presidents and freakin' Al Franken is a senator, that's very slightly above average. Considering that the American people tend to think of the President as an almost omnipotent ruler, the Messiah is going to have to show something beyond slightly above average to win respect and a second term considering that there are probably a few hundred sitting and past senators and about the same number of governors who would very much like to be president.
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
Whoa. To say this is a turnaround is an understatement. Overall, Ohioans would rather have Bush back by 50%-42%. Bush is preferred by a net +7% of independents (44/37). Heck, one in 9 of Democrats would rather have Bush over Obama.
Why is this terribly surprising? Ohio was very much a battleground state in 2008. He didn't do extraordinarily well. Given how much worse the economy is now than in 2008, I'd be surprised if the poll results were the opposite. Bush won Ohio in 2004 and the state is trending Republican now. Outside of the major cities in Ohio, it's very much a red state.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
The bottom line is, the Dems only have themselves to blame for this. They campaign on gov't being the answer to all your problems, and when they actually get in power and can't deliver, of course people get bitter. You can't run on the platform that you're the party of Santa Claus and not deliver the presents when you get elected.

See sig.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,620
4,675
136
You've seen his columbia transcripts? Thats interesting ...


http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama

From your link:

It has been reported that Obama graduated without honors, but if the policies then were the same as they are today, he would not have been eligible for Latin honors, because he spent only two years in the college. After graduation, Obama hoped to become a community organizer, but could not find work as one, and joined a consulting firm instead.

A little more research will show that the bolded is true. He would have never been admitted to Harvard on his own merit.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,256
9,076
136
I fail to see the correlation between him only not getting honors at CU because his length of stay there, and "never being admitted to harvard on his own merit". Does not compute.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
From your link:

It has been reported that Obama graduated without honors, but if the policies then were the same as they are today, he would not have been eligible for Latin honors, because he spent only two years in the college. After graduation, Obama hoped to become a community organizer, but could not find work as one, and joined a consulting firm instead.

A little more research will show that the bolded is true. He would have never been admitted to Harvard on his own merit.

Are you absolutely sure? Seems to me that Harvard would have some flexibility to cover this situation. In any case, it would hardly be unique if Obama got into Harvard on the basis of connections rather than ability and accomplishments. Bush has a Masters from Harvard Business School; anybody really believe he got in on merit? I'd be surprised if a substantial minority of Harvard students (of any postgrad program and probably undergrad as well) weren't admitted (and probably helped along) for their connections.

Regardless, this has importance only insofar as liberals use his academic career to promote the idea of a super-intelligent mega-Messiah who is so intelligent that he only looks dumb to us yokels. To me his academic career (including being president of Harvard Law Review) is irrelevant, as the man has had a couple decades since to define and delineate himself.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
If you're trying to say that the young Obama had the same kind of connections as Dubya's daddy, you're out of your mind...

The Bush family is old money, lots of it, while Obama's maternal grandparents were upper middle class, at best.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
If you're trying to say that the young Obama had the same kind of connections as Dubya's daddy, you're out of your mind...

The Bush family is old money, lots of it, while Obama's maternal grandparents were upper middle class, at best.

No doubt the Bush clan was better connected and had more strings to pull than just about anyone not named Kennedy. Obama most certainly did not have those kinds of benefactors and connections. He might have benefited from affirmative action and a good measure of political correctness, but his accomplishments are beyond question.

I do find it interesting that people keep referring to Obama's Harvard law degree and education as some sort of evidence of his intelligence, but yet pooh-pooh Bush having a masters from the Harvard school of business. It just shows you that academic degrees don't really mean much in terms of measuring intelligence.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
No doubt the Bush clan was better connected and had more strings to pull than just about anyone not named Kennedy. Obama most certainly did not have those kinds of benefactors and connections. He might have benefited from affirmative action and a good measure of political correctness, but his accomplishments are beyond question.

I do find it interesting that people keep referring to Obama's Harvard law degree and education as some sort of evidence of his intelligence, but yet pooh-pooh Bush having a masters from the Harvard school of business. It just shows you that academic degrees don't really mean much in terms of measuring intelligence.

I seriously doubt that the young Obama could have afforded tutors and ghost writers. GWB's family would have had no difficulties doing that whatsoever.

What voters really want back is the illusion of prosperity provided during the Bush years- an illusion based on tax cuts, federal deficits and runaway real estate flimflams. All they remember is the going up, not the last 2 years of it when coming down was getting kinda tough... a locked up banking system poised to self destruct, real estate values plummeting from unrealistic highs, investors fleeing the stock market like the place was on fire, rampant speculation in oil... Good times, huh?

Obama's mistake, and the mistake of Dems in general was in soft peddling the truth- that we've been screwed, hard, and it's going to take a lot of time, work and sacrifice to change that.

Repubs seem to be doing alright exploiting denial, the stubborn refusal of people to acknowledge that the reason we got screwed is that we were greedy and gullible voting W and the repubs into power in the first place. W's big message in the 2000 election was giving everybody tax rebates, and then the pie in the sky ownership society in 2004... their new pitch is sour grapes and the lure of private enterprise creating jobs, as if that's actually been happening for the last several years...

Cutting taxes at the top will magically create jobs, right?

I have a feeling it'll just create fatter bank accounts and bigger investment portfolios, just as it's done in the past... and, hey, it's not all bad, because they'll have more capital to offshore more jobs faster, bring lower prices to people who still have jobs...
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I do find it interesting that people keep referring to Obama's Harvard law degree and education as some sort of evidence of his intelligence, but yet pooh-pooh Bush having a masters from the Harvard school of business.
There are two things at play here.

1. Bush is a Republican and therefore must be stupid. They called Reagan dumb too and Ford, who could have been a NFL player, was a klutz.

2. Obama SOUNDS smart while Bush does not. However, as we are learning, the ability to sound smart does not mean that the person IS actually that smart. Not that Obama is stupid, but that Obama is not nearly as brilliant as people tried to make him out to be, or it could be possible that he is brilliant, but he may also be tone deaf to what people want hence his low popularity.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
I seriously doubt that the young Obama could have afforded tutors and ghost writers. GWB's family would have had no difficulties doing that whatsoever.

... and surely you have proof of such accusations, right? Not mere ranting and speculation by partisan hacks, but actual proof, right?

What voters really want back is the illusion of prosperity provided during the Bush years- an illusion based on tax cuts, federal deficits and runaway real estate flimflams.

It might all have been a house of cards or an illusion, but the fact is that people had jobs. The job market is the #1 thing hurting Obama right now. No amount of speeches and talk of future initiatives will matter to someone who can't find a job.

All they remember is the going up, not the last 2 years of it when coming down was getting kinda tough... a locked up banking system poised to self destruct, real estate values plummeting from unrealistic highs, investors fleeing the stock market like the place was on fire, rampant speculation in oil... Good times, huh?

I seem to remember the same scenario in the Clinton to Bush transition. A super huge bubble (internet stocks) drove an economic house of cards. In the latter years of Clinton the house of cards started to collapse, just in time for a new president to inherit a recession, which was then made worse by an unprecedented attack on the nation. People started longing for the "good old days of prosperity under Clinton". In other words, people don't care what the underlying reasons are -- they had jobs and had economic opportunities. That's the same thing they want now, and - fair or unfair - they always blame the guy in power for the problem, whether it's their fault or not.

Obama's mistake, and the mistake of Dems in general was in soft peddling the truth- that we've been screwed, hard, and it's going to take a lot of time, work and sacrifice to change that.

That might be true, but no politician gets elected with doom and gloom. The fact is you have to blow sunshine and smoke up the behinds of the voters, or you won't get elected.

the stubborn refusal of people to acknowledge that the reason we got screwed is that we were greedy and gullible voting W and the repubs into power in the first place.

More partisan drivel.

Cutting taxes at the top will magically create jobs, right?

Hey look, a unicorn! errr.... I mean, a "tax cut for the rich".

and, hey, it's not all bad, because they'll have more capital to offshore more jobs faster, bring lower prices to people who still have jobs...

Right. The republicans are the reason for jobs getting off-shored. Good thinking. :rolleyes:
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,184
2,224
136
No kidding. If McCain had been elected what would be different right now? Nothing.


He would have been seen as more business friendly than Obama and companies would be rehiring by now to get the economy going. Businesses would have more confidence in McCain than Obama. We are up shit creek right now.

He would not have completely overhauled healthcare in the middle of a severe economic crisis. A move that has created a lot of uncertainty for businesses and the general public.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
... and surely you have proof of such accusations, right? Not mere ranting and speculation by partisan hacks, but actual proof, right?

That's not an accusation- it's innuendo. Righties usually know the difference, commonly employing both tactics. It was a swipe at werepossum's remarks about Obama's alleged "connections" to get into Harvard Law...

The popping of the Tech bubble really doesn't compare to the housing bubble. In the former, investors won and lost money, people got laid off and so forth. We were particularly hard hit here in the metro area. But it doesn't even compare to the breadth and depth of the looting that occurred in the housing bubble and the consequences. This won't be going away for a very long time, much like it still hasn't gone away for the Japanese whose housing market was manipulated in the same way in the early 90's. Enormous numbers of homeowners will still be underwater for many years to come, foreclosures ongoing, prices continuing to decline. Remember the cashout refi craze of 2005? That won't be happening again anytime rsn... being underwater effectively removes families' last line of economic defense in bad times- the equity in their homes.

We're just starting into the greatest financial catastrophe since 1929. The only reasons that's not entirely evident are TARP and enormous amounts of liquidity injected into the system by the treasury and the FRB. Whether that'll do anything more than slow the decline remains to be seen.

So, uhh, be sure to vote for a return to the policies that put us into this mess, you hear? And be sure to endorse a tax cut for the guys at the top- they're holding the economy hostage, so we better give 'em what they want...
 
Last edited:

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
That's not an accusation- it's innuendo. Righties usually know the difference, commonly employing both tactics.

Got it, so that's just emtpy drivel.

The popping of the Tech bubble really doesn't compare to the housing bubble. In the former, investors won and lost money, people got laid off and so forth. We were particularly hard hit here in the metro area. But it doesn't even compare to the breadth and depth of the looting that occurred in the housing bubble and the consequences. This won't be going away for a very long time, much like it still hasn't gone away for the Japanese whose housing market was manipulated in the same way in the early 90's. Enormous numbers of homeowners will still be underwater for many years to come, foreclosures ongoing, prices continuing to decline. Remember the cashout refi craze of 2005? That won't be happening again anytime rsn... being underwater effectively removes families' last line of economic defense in bad times- the equity in their homes.

We're just starting into the greatest financial catastrophe since 1929. The only reasons that's not entirely evident are TARP and enormous amounts of liquidity injected into the system by the treasury and the FRB. Whether that'll do anything more than slow the decline remains to be seen.

While the specifics of each bubble are different, the basic sequence of events is the same: bubble develops while on pres is in office, then starts to deflate as he's leaving, handing a mess to the next president. Sure the housing bubble / financial crisis is orders of magnitudes bigger than the internet bubble was. The point is that people blamed Bush even though he inherited the mess, just like they now blame Obama even though he inherited a mess as well. That's just how it works. Blaming any president for all this stuff is silly anyway since the president controls only a small portion of what affects the economy.

So, uhh, be sure to vote for a return to the policies that put us into this mess, you hear? And be sure to endorse a tax cut for the guys at the top- they're holding the economy hostage, so we better give 'em what they want...

Yeah, Bush caused the real estate bubble :rolleyes: Brilliant! The policies that put us into this mess. You mean, like Glass-Steagall enacted under Clinton? What policies are you referring to? I'm an independent myself, but this silly blame booooosh nonsense from the left is getting very old. It's reflected in the polls -- independents and even democrats just don't buy it anymore. Stop wasting time blaming someone who hasn't been in the white house for 2 years and start focusing on what needs to be done.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I think only the Asians as a culture really appreciate the right qualities - intelligence, hard work, achievement, family, sacrifice. But it's worse among blacks on average, and has a worse impact on blacks because on average blacks start with less wealth, influence and connections. George W. Bush for instance would have been hard pressed not to succeed; Barack Obama could have easily failed to succeed, despite being half white and having money on his mother's side. I certainly would not argue that whites appreciate the correct virtues in our culture, but as one of those who stood out - advanced classes, 99.5% achievement tests, and such - I never felt shunned or oppressed by anyone growing up. But then my grades weren't particularly good anyway (outside of the very advanced courses) so perhaps my experience was non-typical.

Lot's of biases flying around in this thread.

Check out information about the model minority myth. Some Asian American populations do well, but overall their poverty and education levels are comparable with other minorities. In fact, many Asian Americans have faced discrimination on two levels: for being "too" white, and for not being "white enough." Perpetration of such myths is often a way (unconscious or not) for dominant groups to maintain power by turning minority groups against each other. Many Asian American communities share values closer aligned with Latino and African American members, such as collectivism.

I think you are incorrect about Obama only being popular because he was black. In the Democrat primaries his appeal extended much further than to just African Americans, he also captured the young vote, as well as those with advanced education. Many weren't buying what Hillary was selling, or were dismayed by her "inevitable" attitude. You can poke fun at his use of teleprompters, but his public speaking skills and ability to deliver a speech are top notch in comparison to many politicians. He has charisma. Some didn't like his debate performances because he wasn't as fluid, but I personally felt like he was actually thinking about questions and trying to deliver a good answer, rather than a talking point.

I don't see much difference in how education is valued across races. There are some minorities who view education as the "white mans" games, but it hasn't struck me as being any different in size from the number of whites who view the educated with disdain. Most of the minorities I have worked with see education as a way of escaping poverty. A poor view of the educated is pretty universal. It isn't even exclusive to those with relatively low education levels, in college and graduate school there is a lot of angst directed towards students who "break the curve."

Affirmative action does not mean a lowering of standards, and such an assertion is ridiculous and unsupported by evidence. Affirmative action programs can have positive and negative impacts, and it generally boils down to how the program is being implemented. As far as I'm concerned, the benefits I've gained from being exposed to people from different backgrounds has far outweighed any negative consequences.

As a white male who is a relative minority in my profession (mental health counseling), my own experience with affirmative action programs have been mostly positive. It helps to increase the diversity of opinions and strengthen my overall education. Since I am one of the few men in the program and have been awarded some opportunities other students have not, I work harder to "earn" the privileges I have been given. I especially do not want to give the impression that I am taking my opportunities for granted.

That said, I'm hoping we can get to a place when Affirmative Action programs take into account socioeconomic status in addition to gender and race. They are an imperfect attempt to account for the vast disparities in opportunity that exist across these factors. Put another way: you can pull on those boot straps all you want, it doesn't do a damn bit of good if they just snap off.
 
Last edited: