 |
| |
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
Most colleges in the U.S. sadly enough judge students admissionsbased on race....they want minorities to look multicultural.
Well come how many dont take preferance to minority groups who were once opressed/disrespected but who through hard work are respected in main stream America.....Groups like say Eastern Asians, Arabs, Indians(from India, not native Americans) and to a lesser extend Jews.....
So because Asians, Arabs, Indians and Jews are widley "succesfull" in America, they arent wanted by colleges to be "multi-cultural"?
Note: I think taking admissions based on race is completley wrong but if they are going for a "diverse" mix, why leave out certain groups?
Cant we all just agree that college admissions is TERRIBLY racist, abolish the current system and admit based soley on merit.....could it be because our nations colleges are run by ULTRA liberal lunatics? Nothing against liberals I am very conservative on some issues, and very liberal on others(do they cancel out and make me a moderate?) but our nations colleges make Adolph Hitler look like the Pope.....
I know this is some WACKO crazy idea but didnt Martin Luther King Jr. once say:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. "
Colleges should ignore that what is IMPORTANT is that they have a properly proportional ethnicity in their student body, even though by and large racism is no longer a big problem in this country....No one is going to accuse colleges of being racist if they dont give preferencial treatment to minorities-hell latley its just the opposite....
I DONT get it......how long will it take our ultra-liberal colleges to catch up with the times?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000
time: 05:26
|
|
I could give you a Liberal's response to this (opportunity should be evened out based on basic circumstances in order to facilitate as fair and equal society as possible), but I'm not going to bother as I am not a liberal. I'm sure some kind-hearted individualist fool like yourself will step up to the plate and bicker about the technicalities of achieving equality and so on. Also I'm almost certain that's what this thread will turn into.
Never mind. I'll give you my cobbled-together home-made post-modern feminist view anyway. Maybe you can learn something from it- most people will just ignore it, possibly because I'm not an ace at explaining it.
I believe two things that would support trying to create as multicultural a campus environment as possible.
I believe that Opportunity is Power. Without opportunity, the interests and values of other social groups than the currently totally hegemonous ones will never even get the chance to be expressed, much less influence society to an equal degree. Without women in our boardrooms the different knowledge and interest base of women won't even get looked to. Without a representative portion of other cultural groups in our assemblies, there's not even a chance of the cultural values of those groups getting expressed in policy. Representation, especially of minorities, is far from a guarantee that their values will have a bearing on our common knowledge base, but I think it's pretty much a prerequisite. Without representation, one culture will entirely and unfairly dominate all others.
It is in our common interest to smash that, and other, hegemonies. This is because Ibelieve in knowledge as a social product- the ideas of a small, select and culturally homogenous group are doomed to be inadequate in dealing with the changing nature of society. Look at the soviet union- few white men decide everything, a beuraucratic monoculture, less than a century later it goes entirely tits-up. No individual or individual social group can have total knowledge, and will certainly be poor in terms of perspective. Adabtability, flexibility and the ability to take the interest of the multitude of different groups that make up society into account are all lost.
Lemme set a though-excercise for you.
You're given the task of selecting a three-person panel of judges that are to judge a broad range of artistic achievements from a whole set of fields. The only point is to make the panel as a whole as able as possible. Five candidates are presented to you: Three white, upper-class Ivy League men who've known each other their whole lives, are all the same age and have a monthly dinner together, all supreme authorities in the field of comparing artistic ability (in the Harvard tradition). Two somewhat less qualified candidates, one a young hispanic woman, the other an older, gay black man, both with a set of entirely different experiences of field-work and extensive travel, but with nowhere near the theoretic ability. What three do you pick?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
See? You're missing what I'm taking about entirely. I'm not talking about individual opportunity, I'm talking about groups increasing their share of the power in society by their members having opportunity.
And Racism (or rather cultural hegemonies) exists in every country, everywhere. It's greatest manifestation is in the total monopoly of one set of cultural values and those that adhere to them being the ones in near-total control of the power. |
Groups as a whole are no longer having their opportunities denied so colleges do not need to try some half-assed social engineering program to help those "poor minorities".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Abdul-Aziz
|
|
Land of Eternal Truth
Feb 2003
time: 08:26
|
|
Yes, USA always was and is racist state. Currently it made huge efforts to stop racism against blacks, probably even too big, but now other races starts to get insulted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Charlemagne120
|
|
Booyah!!!
Jan 2003
time: 23:26
|
|
I've always been a big fan of this idea for minorities to think about:
"if you want equality get the same standards as white guys"
like with the AA...extra points for college admition cause ur black? i want em cause im irish...the irish were put down for years
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mactbone
|
 |
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
Bzzzt wrong Abdul-Aziz.
http://www.iss.purdue.edu/
quote:
This year nearly 4,700 students and 700 faculty and staff from 132 countries are a part of the Purdue Boilermaker family. |
For an in depth look -
http://www.iss.purdue.edu/Resources...eportFall01.pdf
BTW, by region it goes Asia with a huge number, then Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, North America, and Oceania.
So, we provide plenty of opportunities to "minorities" (I quote minorities because they may be minorities here, but not in their own country)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Aren't you missing the question? Why are certain minorities given special opportunities that other minorities are not given? |
All the minorities mentioned by Vesayen are overrepresented. Now, you could ask why, and usually, the reason is that that is where discrimination led them (you know, like why Jews became bankers..because that was one of the few jobs they could take up).
The situation of African Americans in the Us is trully different from that of any other group: after all, the whole notion of "white people" was so that every new group, the Italians, Irish, so forth and so on, could integrate while making sure blacks stayed in their place. Poeple are white, because they aren't black, not the other way around.
I am on the fence about Hispanics (being one). Most hispanics are voluntary immigrants, and as such they lack the same historical bias that exists towards blacks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
Aren't you missing the question? Why are certain minorities given special opportunities that other minorities are not given? |
All the minorities mentioned by Vesayen are overrepresented. Now, you could ask why, and usually, the reason is that that is where discrimination led them (you know, like why Jews became bankers..because that was one of the few jobs they could take up). |
AH yes I forgot all Jews are rich bankers right?
*checks his wallet and the wallet of every familly member*
Um no.........bad example.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Do you read the quote? If Jews became bankers in the Middle Ages is because the law did not allow them to become much of anyting else. That was a simple statement of fact. Do you have a problem with facts? |
Most Jews were NOT bankers in the middle ages, many of the more respectable/well known bankers in the middle ages were Jews, but most were not........do you see the logistical problems with an racial group the size of the Jews(even then) all being bankers? Bankers are by defenition/their need in society a small percentage of the total population, much smaller then the already small # of Jews.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
Not all minorities faced the same thing, so to say that hey, one found success, why couldn't they all is to me too simplistic an answer. Were the Irish a minority? One time they were, but hey were allowed to become part of the majority. Same for Italians, and though more slowly, Jews. All of these gorups are able now to classify themselves as "white", part fo the majority. Blacks never had that ability. I never saw a bus that said: Koreans to the back, Pakistanis to the back. That is not to say that they did not face discrimination: minority groups everywhere face discrimination for beign different. But discrimination was institutionalized for Blacks for the major part of the history of this country.
As I said earlier, to me the issue of hispanics is different: they didn't face institutionalized discrimination the way blacks did: they were treated much like the Chinese, as menial laborers, and many hispanic groups were never poor: take the Cuba exiles, most of which were middle class. Then add the fact that hispanic is a cultural and not a racial term, and you get even more issues.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HolyWarrior
|
|
quote:
Affirmative action bake sale
Not all college students support racial preferences, and some UCLA students made their feelings known in a highly innovative way.
In early February, Bruin Republicans organized a campus cookie sale -- but not your ordinary cookie sale. They offered cookies at different prices depending on the customer's race and sex. Black, Latino and American Indian females were charged 25 cents for a cookie, while their male counterparts were charged 50 cents. White females were charged a dollar. White males were charged two dollars. Asian males and females also were charged two dollars a cookie.
Students selling the cookies assigned themselves nametags. Some of the name tags read "Uncle Tom," "The White Oppressor" and "Self-Hating Hispanic Race Traitor." Chris Riha, third-year business economics student participating in the Affirmative Action Bake Sale, said that the students decided to one-up their detractors by assigning the names themselves. That's what minorities who disagree with racial preferences are either called, or thought to be: an "Uncle Tom" or self-hating black or Hispanic.
Chairman of the California Democratic Party Art Torres voiced his disapproval, saying, "I am deeply saddened and disheartened at the activities of the Bruin Republicans." He accused them of having been emboldened by Sen. Trent Lott's remarks that led to his ouster as the Senate majority leader. Torres' condemnation was joined by many of UCLA's racial preferences supporters.
Here's my question for those who condemned the event. Why be offended by a money version of racial preferences? After all, it's identical in principle to admission practices sanctioned by university communities across America. In fact, that's what the University of Michigan case before the U.S. Supreme Court is all about -- treating people differently by race.
Some might ask: "Why are Asians charged two dollars? They're a minority." You'd be right. According to the 2000 Census, residents who reported as Asian, or in combination with one or more other races, totaled 11.9 million -- or 4percent -- of our population. In my book that makes Asians a minority and eligible for the cookie affirmative action discount. Instead of being charged two dollars for a cookie, Asian females and Asian males are rightful claimants to the racially discounted price of 25 cents and 50 cents, respectively.
If you see things that way, and think Asian-Americans are eligible for preferential treatment, it simply means that you haven't kept abreast with modern racial enlightenment. A minority group is not a minority if, as a group, it is successful. Asian median family is $55,525, the highest of any other racial group in America. More than 44 percent of Asians age 25 and over have bachelor degrees; the rate for all other Americans was 26 percent. Other indicators of group success would include low crime rate and high family stability. Case closed -- Asians are not a minority.
Being a UCLA alumnus (doctorate 1972), I can sympathize with critics of the Affirmative Action Bake Sale. Were I still a student, I'd walk up to these people and tell them that selling cookies on campus is OK, but it's a despicable, mean practice to treat people differently just because they're members of one race or sex or another.
I'd take a principled stand -- that's where I differ from other critics of the Affirmative Action Bake Sale. They take a situational stand on racial preferences. For them, whether racial preferences are wrong or right depends upon whom it's practiced against.
I'd like to ask my fellow critics just one question: If racial preferences, highlighted by the cookie, are wrong and offensive, why wouldn't it also be wrong and offensive in the university's admissions practices? After all, the Affirmative Action Bake Sale was promoting diversity in cookie ownership. |
Walter Williams editorial
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
affirmitive action is a crock...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
My 2 cents:
Affirmative Action is not about equal opportunity it is about equal success, and should therefor be abolished less we elect Jessie Jackson to office.
The reason certain minorities are not admitted under affirmative action while others are is because those certain minorities already, and have had, the success while other minorities have not.
The reason AA is being abolished, and rightfully so, is that AA once included those minorities that are now successful and no longer take need AA. Yet, for some reason, it is deemed necessary to keep the other minorities, those that have not accomplished the same level of success through AA, within this "special program"? People are realizing that this is not so. That if these other minorities were able to overcome the racisim than why haven't all of them? The answer; they want equal success and not equal opportunity.
Basically, I make the point that Vesayan makes, only with more words and the resounding undertones that attack the ideal of "leaders" of the black (and other minority) community, and uphold the ideals that I-Cube presented in the movie "Barbershop".
quote:
The situation of African Americans in the Us is trully different from that of any other group: after all, the whole notion of "white people" was so that every new group, the Italians, Irish, so forth and so on, could integrate while making sure blacks stayed in their place. Poeple are white, because they aren't black, not the other way around.
I am on the fence about Hispanics (being one). Most hispanics are voluntary immigrants, and as such they lack the same historical bias that exists towards blacks. |
I don't want to grab Cali and go into a racist rant, but I will if I have to. Yet, for some reason I agree with what you are saying Gepap. However, do you not feel that even with the advantages black people have been given over the past two decades that they have really improved their standard of living by a significant proportion, statistically? I don't. I sadly think that a majority of them chose to oppress themselves, and would rather whine for handouts than to actually work for it like the rest of the immigrants or non-white americans.
Case in point: I grew up in Fresno, CA. We have large communities of blacks, hispanics (first generation Mexican Americans), Hmong (people from Laos), and Armenians. When I started going to school there was a definite division of all the people. There were white, black, hispanic, Armenian, and Hmong neighborhoods. The worse of them was the black neighborhood. I don't mean that it was the most dangerous, it was just the area with lowest property values and most trash in the streets. The Mexican neighb. was a close second. The Hmong was after that, though they were mostly farmers living in lean to's in their fields. Then came the whites, followed the Armenians (I think they were all related to Oberti Olive guy).
Now, 20 years later, the hispanic neighborhood is really nice, and is actually experience the highest boom in property values anywhere in the US. Many of the famillies that have once lived there have crossed the street and are now living amongst the whites. The Hmong's fields have grown, and on the boarders are lovely new track houses. It is amazing what selling strawberries on the side of the road for two decades can get you. The armenians have fell a little in their social status since the commercialization of many of the farms, yet on a whole are still successfully equal with the whites and hispanics in the area. Yet, the Black neighborhood has not changed abit. Well, that is not entirly true, the crime rate has increased... alot.
My point: Certain ethnic minorities are willing to take the advantages they are given, use them to their full extent, and then gladly dismiss them as the prejudice and need for "special" assistance resides. Other ethnic minorities do not. They do not want to work for success, and whine about it when only 50% of a company is minority even though 70% of the community is in the same class. EOE does not, and should not, lead to equal success.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
A minority group is not a minority if, as a group, it is successful. |
huh?
nowhere does that definition show up in the OED, Merriam-Webster, or Dictionary.com.
this one comes closest:
quote:
1. The condition or fact of being smaller, inferior, or subordinate. Obs. |
note the Obs (= obsolete). add to the fact that asians are discriminated against, particularly in non-scientific fields, such as: politics, acting...
don't get me wrong. i dislike affirmative action, and i think it's silly to attach it to race. but if you attach it to race, you ought to have the decency to attach it to all minority races, including asians.
the only real form of affirmative action that i could probably ever support would be one based on economic strata, rather than race; because often, it's poor people who are locked out of higher education, far more often than those of a particular skin color.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-02-2003 04:24
) so any providing extra opportunities is reverse descrimination.
|