Some People Somewhere Do Something To Someone For Some Reason

[Capt Caveman]

Asians have faced just as much racism and discrimination as Mexicans, and Mexicans are given preferential treatment, but Asians are given negative treatment under affirmative action.

Maybe in CA but in MA, asians received the same treatment under affirmative action.

 

[cybrsage]

It can be for every group disadvantaged now by historic discrimination that is statistically lacking equality of opportunity. So all the white slaves in US history's families are eligible.

So you support white Jews getting in on the AA action, right? Jews were heavily discriminated against during most of the US' history.

How about Asians...you know about the camps the US forced them into during WW2, right? Most people would consider that some pretty bad discrimination.

 

[DCal430]

Maybe in CA but in MA, asians received the same treatment under affirmative action.

I really doubt that. At least not at the university levels. At none of the top schools are Asian included in affirmative action, and this includes Massachusetts.

 

[DCal430]

Whites saw little change in admission rates after prop 209, but Asian admission rates went way up, especially disadvantaged Asian groups such as Southeast Asians. With affirmative action addmisions of groups such as Southeast Asians will go down.

 

[Capt Caveman]

I really doubt that. At least not at the university levels. At none of the top schools are Asian included in affirmative action, and this includes Massachusetts.

Again, you would be incorrect. As I'm proof of that.

Found this article that discusses decreased enrollment of asians in law school after the elimination of affirmative action.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/21/affirm

Kidder wanted to check his critique of the Princeton findings about undergraduate applications so he also compared the impact of the end of affirmative action on Asian American enrollments at five public law schools where racial preferences were banned: three in the University of California, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Washington.

Tracking enrollment patterns from 1993, when all of the law schools had affirmative action, to 2004 -- when they all did not -- and then to 2005, when Texas restored it, his results were surprising. Without affirmative action, the share of Asian American enrollments dropped at two of the law schools and increased only marginally at three of the schools -- even though people assume Asian American enrollments will go way up without affirmative action. Kidder notes that during the time period studied, the percentage of Asian Americans applying to law school increased 50 percent, so the pool should have created the opportunity for major increases.

His interest in law schools comes from his own experience, since he is a graduate of Boalt Hall, the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, and was a student there in the second class after affirmative action was eliminated. He could see the more diverse third-year class and compare it to his own, which was almost entirely white, as is Kidder.

"There was an erosion in discourse and the quality of education I received," he says, noting that in his experience, the affirmative action changes that sent black and Latino enrollments tanking did not lead to an influx of Asian American enrollments.

 

[BoberFett]

Craig is a racist piece of trash trying to hide under the mantle of progressivism.

 

[Riparian]

Again, you would be incorrect. As I'm proof of that.

You're proof that you got into a MA university based on affirmative action? Did they specifically come out and tell you that you were admitted because you are Asian?

 

[DCal430]

Again, you would be incorrect. As I'm proof of that.

You are not proof of it, admissions shows you are wrong.

I am proof that banning affirmative action helps disadvantage Asian groups.

 

[DCal430]

Again, you would be incorrect. As I'm proof of that.

Found this article that discusses decreased enrollment of asians in law school after the elimination of affirmative action.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/21/affirm



From a Berekely Law Student -

At all other Areas it increased, dramatically. The reason is Asians don't tend to look favorably on law schools, so the top Asians do not apply to law schools in as large numbers.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/post-prop-209-asian-students-benefit.html

 

[Darwin333]

Nice try but affirmative action is more than just admittance but also providing those in school with resources. Thus, affirmative action would also assist in improving those graduation rates. How do I know? When I was in school, I used to be a tutor for students of color in my program. Something still needed by your graph.

You would only accept people of color to tutor? And why is AA required for you to be a tutor?

 

[DCal430]

Again, you would be incorrect. As I'm proof of that.

Found this article that discusses decreased enrollment of asians in law school after the elimination of affirmative action.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/21/affirm

The study shows Asians did not decrease after prop 209 in law schools either, it said it didn't increase as much as whites. It showed Asian are 18% of the law school Admission in the UC but are only 10% of the state. Proponents of affirmative action would like to see the number of Asians admitted into law school drop by nearly half.

 

[Darwin333]

therer have been plenty of opportunities to straighten out the mess. The people of California and their electoral Representatives have chosen not to.

By making something have a cost; it encourages value of the product.

If students want to pay $100K for a basket weaving education, let them.
They knew going in that there were not the jobs to justify spending the costs of $25K each year. Graduating from UCB or UCLA still does not mean that you have to have a job - it means that you should have to earn it.

That is not really the problem. Student loans should be treated like all other loans and the easiest way to do that is to make them dischargable through bankruptcy like all other loans.

The moment you do that and there is risk to the lender they will stop giving $100,000 loans to kids that are extremely unlikely to be able to pay them back due to the earning potential of the area they intend on studying. This will necessarily bring tuition down to a level that is once again sensible. I agree that the kid that spent $100K on an education to earn $25K made a bad choice but the real problem is that the education to make $25K cost $100K in the first place.

 

[Capt Caveman]

You would only accept people of color to tutor? And why is AA required for you to be a tutor?

The program supported by Affirmative Action hired students of color to tutor students of color within my school. The program also involved recruiting companies to recruit from this pool of students which allowed me to be the first asian in my company's financial management training program.

 

[Atreus21]

Ah, the excuses for inequality keep coming.

You didn't make a person handicapped so why the hell should YOU not get the closest parking spot instead of them?

Inaccurate comparison. What you're advocating is that the children of handicapped people be allowed to park in handicapped spaces because their forbears suffered from being handicapped.

You didn't oppress the people of Libya or Rwanda, bad leaders did, so why the hell should YOU lift one finger to prevent the slaughter of innocent people? Moral idiocy.

Inaccurate comparison. What you're advocating is that the children of Rwandans and Libyans who suffered should be protected because their parents suffered.

OUR SOCIETY caused discrimination that STILL HARMS PEOPLE AND DENIES THEM EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TODAY.

Innacurate again. Our society 150 years ago caused discrimination that harmed people. And claiming that people suffer STILL because their parents' parents' parents' parents suffered is a dubious claim.

The 'color blind' society doesn't happen with the snap of someone's fingers. It actually takes more than than, but you are clueless.

It happens whenever we stop caring about peoples' skin color. Affirmative Action perpetuates that more than any other policy.

Don't bother reading the following. It's an analogy. The post is over for you.

For others, the analogy:

Consider we just ended the law banning teaching blacks to read and write.

We didn't just end it. We ended it 150 years ago.

One leader notices what a huge disadvantage this puts blacks at and encourages a program targeting blacks to bring their literacy levels closer to whites.

Another leader wants the votes of the white people and tells them how they're getting screwed by that program.

'There are still white children who are illiterate - as long as there is one, there should be no preferential treatment based on race! Vote against blacks screwing whites!'

That's the same basic idea - one injustice can need a remedy that benefits the people harmed by the injustice.

Because of a long history of discrimination, generations of blacks were forced into low-paying work, are now hugely poorer as a group, were denied school, and much more.

This is merely a TEMPORARY measure to say 'they are hugely denied opportunity because of past wrong and this is to correct some of that harm'.

It's moving towards equality of opporunity - not going anywhere past the group who was harmed getting closer to equal opportunity, towards 'preferential treatment'.

In fact it's just obscene for the people who have advantages because of the discrimination today benefiting their families, to whine about the people who are harmed.

Do I need to post charts again with the results the inequality causes today?

No one is saying 'have affirmative action to the point of equal outcomes'. It's a much more limited program than that.

Craig, you can either send the one ring into the fires of Mt. Doom or you can try and bend it to your will.

But the peoplel who like the race-based advantages are going to keep the excuses coming demanding it be protected, hiding behind the lie it's 'the same as racism'.

That's not a lie. Affirmative Action is in fact racism. It's simply racism that we have harnessed to help the victims of past racism. If racism is wrong, say it's wrong. If it's a tool that is only wrong when misused, say it's that.

 

[monovillage]

I'm surprised that we didn't get a craig post saying

"times were different, the Ke...errr white men had a different view of racism.

 

[Munky]

Obviously, the libtards didn't think their options though. A bunch of white, self-loathing, guilt-brainwashed, "enlightened" socialites feel comfortable preaching reverse-discrimination in the name of "equality," sitting in their academic ivory tower.

But how would you react if your kid with an SAT score of 1400 got rejected from a college in favor of a black kid who scored 800? Never mind that the college degree alone would put him an an advantage, how would you feel if an employer hired another black kid with zero qualifications instead of your qualified white kid in order to meet their "diversity" quota? I guarantee, you would be singing a different tune then. But it's ok to preach the perverse propaganda that is affirmative action, as long as the consequences happen to someone other than you.

 

[chucky2]

Munky I think some of the people are so F'd in the head that post here, they'd actually be telling their kid how it was a good thing (with some rediculous rationalization), or OK, that that happened. I really think some are that far gone...

 

[dmcowen674]

Some People Somewhere Do Something To Someone For Some Reason

The Declaration of Independence refers to "certain unalienable rights." The Constitution defines such rights and enacts them as part of the supreme law of our land to ensure that these rights are not subject to being removed or restricted by the will or whim of whatever majority may exist within our citizenry at any given moment in our history. Its purpose is to avoid imposing "tyranny of the majority" upon any minority group of citizens.

Sadly, our history is tarnished with examples where, without such Constitutional safeguards, groups of our citizens have been denied equal rights, including the rights of women and minorities to vote, to marry a person of another race and more.

California's Proposition 187 is one example. It was enacted by a scant 51% majority, and it imposed their bigotry on an entire class of American citizens.

Yesterday, New Jersey's state Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill, and their Assembly is expected to approve the measure on Thursday and send it to Gov. Chris Christie, who has stated that he will veto it and that the matter should be decided by the voters through a ballot measure. He further said that he thinks "people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than dying in the streets in the south."

Like the OP, all Christie has proven is that he is utterly ignorant of our history, completely detached from reality and hell bent on maintaining bigotry and social inequality among American citizens. If he's right, maybe the people of New Jersey should also be given the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure that would bar morbidly obese, bigoted jackasses like him from marrying, or reproducing or even eating or breathing, let alone holding public office in their state.

With respect to affirmative action, as a nation, we have come a long way toward sharing the rights enshrined in our Constitution with groups whose rights were previously denied, but it is sad that some of the legacy of our past bigotry remains.

Affirmative action measures attempt to rectify that by providing a path for those who were formerly victims of discrimination toward a more balanced and equitable distribution of the rights and opportunities we claim to share equally among our citizens. It isn't pretty, and it isn't perfect, but our own history is proof enough that, without such action, the tyranny of a bigoted majority will remain an obstacle to granting equal rights to minorities for years, or even decades, to come.

Hang in there Harvey

The religious rich Republicans are showing their desperation.

They will lose in the end.