Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters. hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?


  2. #2
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Some excellent points. The real problem with all the affirmative action when it comes to college applications is this. College admission standards are supposed to ensure that the student is capable of doing college-level work. In theory, if you let an academically unqualified student in based on his/her race, you are setting them up for failure. I say "in theory" because I think that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that once admitted, the colleges feel pressured to actually grant these unqualified students degrees. One of the ivy league schools recently published a study showing that "grade inflation" is a very real phenomenom. Of course, being an ivy league school, they declined to look into whether or not racial preferences were playing any role in it. The whole process of affirmative action just lowers the standards for everyone.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  3. #3
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    I say "in theory" because I think that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that once admitted, the colleges feel pressured to actually grant these unqualified students degrees.
    It's a real phenomenon--because they can't have them flunking out, especially if it's an Ivy League school. We joke all the time about grade inflation across the river in the PRC at Harvard; they're masters of the art.

    O'Connor's cop-out position that we need another twenty-five years of racial discrimination in academic was simply appalling. Equality and 14th Amendment protections are apparently only for non-whites and non-Asians in academia. Odd that my copy of the US Constitution doesn't say that, but I must not be "reading" it correctly.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  4. #4
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    ...Equality and 14th Amendment protections are apparently only for non-whites and non-Asians in academia. Odd that my copy of the US Constitution doesn't say that, but I must not be "reading" it correctly.
    CO: Obviously, you are not, you have to understand, the constitution is a living breathing thing, it changes with the times. Thankfully we have emminently qualified supreme court justices to interpret it for us.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  5. #5
    Veteran Member Hello~Kitty's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    345
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Untill the day comes when minorites are not discriminated against EVER again, we need affirmative action .

    The only people I have personally encountered who want to eliminate affirmative action are those who themselves discriminate against one of more groups of minorites.

    I guess like with most things there are exceptions but I have yet to come across the exception on that one.
    Example of discrimination (Imho):

    the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !

    http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590




  6. #6
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
    The only people I have personally encountered who want to eliminate affirmative action are those who themselves discriminate against one of more groups of minorites.
    Thank goodness being white is becoming a minority in California. When it does, then things will get verrrrrry interesting.

  7. #7
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    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 their character. --- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Funny, he didn't say that he longed for the day that his kids would be given preferential treatment based on their ethnicity, only that they be give an equal chance.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  8. #8
    Featured Member Amethyst's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    795
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    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 their character. --- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Funny, he didn't say that he longed for the day that his kids would be given preferential treatment based on their ethnicity, only that they be give an equal chance.
    People love to use that quote by MLK (or whoever really wrote it, but that's another thread), especially when arguing against affirmative action, but fail to read/listen to what he said previously:

    In a sense we have come to our Nation's Capital to cash a check. When the architects of our great republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed to the inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check that has come back marked "insufficient funds....

    There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.

    We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.

    We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.

    We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "for white only."

    We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.

    No, no we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

    http://www.holidays.net/mlk/speech.htm And so forth...


    My point is, MLK pointed out that there are still inequities amongst Whites, Blacks, and other minorities - issues that go far deeper than quotas etc... - but that if we FIX the SYSTEM (and it really is a f'd up system) then we would be "equal" to one another.


    BTW, I apply this to ALL minorities - not on an ethnic scale, but on an economic scale. Economics, IMO, is what breeds inequality. For example, some would say legacies are RICH White people's affirmative action...


    Anyway, I'm actually anti-affirmative-action, but for reasons different from most conservatives and those that read the National Review Online


    As a WOC, I have experienced the nastiness & hostility that comes with being hired in a company that participates in AA. No matter how smart I was or how well I actually did my job or the fact that I blew other, there was always some ass that felt like the only reason I got the job or promotion was to fill a quota. To have to fight that, along with wondering whether or not you really were hired only to fill a quota, is a serious mind f*ck.


    So you see, Af-Action creates hostility towards minorites in the workplace and in education. It also makes one wonder whether or not an individual is qualified to do their job. For example, when some people find that they have a Hispanic doctor, they question whether or not the individual was really qualified to get a med license, or just pushed through b/c of Af-Action.

    The story referenced above is a great example of Aff-Act gone wrong. Quotas are simply not the way to go. One great example of how to increase minority enrollment happened here in SAT where the president of Texas A&M came to schools with a large percentage of minorities in an attempt to recruit and enroll more minority apps. He has also stated that A&M will NOT use race as an admission factor.


    In addition to banning the practice of Aff-ACT, A&M will also ban the practice of giving preference to legacies & alumni and create more scholarships for lower-income students.

    The result?
    n the freshman class of 7,127 students, black enrollment increased by 35 percent for a total of 213 students. And Hispanic enrollment jumped 26 percent to 869 students.
    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/met...1a73f4879.html

    I say get rid of it all - no af-act, no legacies, no greasing the palms - just let people get hired/accepted based upon their own academic/professional achievements.


  9. #9
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Untill the day comes when minorites are not discriminated against EVER again, we need affirmative action
    It's this naive, circular quasi-argument that ensures the perpetuation and aggravation of the very societal problems that proponents of affirmative racism ostensibly wish to end.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member Hello~Kitty's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    345
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    It's this naive, circular quasi-argument that ensures the perpetuation and aggravation of the very societal problems that proponents of affirmative racism ostensibly wish to end.

    Well, I'd rather be viewed as naive than racist
    Quote Originally Posted by Amethyst
    As a WOC, I have experienced the nastiness & hostility that comes with being hired in a company that participates in AA. No matter how smart I was or how well I actually did my job or the fact that I blew other, there was always some ass that felt like the only reason I got the job or promotion was to fill a quota. To have to fight that, along with wondering whether or not you really were hired only to fill a quota, is a serious mind f*ck.


    So you see, Af-Action creates hostility towards minorites in the workplace and in education. It also makes one wonder whether or not an individual is qualified to do their job. For example, when some people find that they have a Hispanic doctor, they question whether or not the individual was really qualified to get a med license, or just pushed through b/c of Af-Action.
    Wow, thanks Amethyst for that perspective. I am of mixed racial background myself and have not had that experience ( yet ?) but your comments made me think about this subject from another angle
    Example of discrimination (Imho):

    the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !

    http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590




  11. #11
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Well, I'd rather be viewed as naive than racist
    See what I mean about circular? Those of us demanding the elimination of affirmative racism are immediately, reflexively labelled racists, which is because even proponents of AA know that they have no legitimate leg to stand on in the face of the 14th Amendment.

    No matter how smart I was or how well I actually did my job or the fact that I blew other, there was always some ass that felt like the only reason I got the job or promotion was to fill a quota. To have to fight that, along with wondering whether or not you really were hired only to fill a quota, is a serious mind f*ck.


    So you see, Af-Action creates hostility towards minorites in the workplace and in education. It also makes one wonder whether or not an individual is qualified to do their job. For example, when some people find that they have a Hispanic doctor, they question whether or not the individual was really qualified to get a med license, or just pushed through b/c of Af-Action.
    Happens all the time...perpetuation of negative stereotypes in action. Think about this same situation multiplied throughout academia and corporate America. Talk about a kick in crotch to people who weren't hired under bullshit diversity quotas or affirmative racism policies.

    So much for changing attitudes and perspectives.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  12. #12
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    378
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
    The only people I have personally encountered who want to eliminate affirmative action are those who themselves discriminate against one of more groups of minorites.

    I guess like with most things there are exceptions but I have yet to come across the exception on that one.
    H~K, when I first read that comment I started to post a counter example, but decided it was neither germane nor representative, so I didn’t.

    Now with Amethyst’s post, it seems a bit more relevant.

    For most of the 1990’s I worked for a black woman, who would be about 60 now. She was a standard NYC liberal, complete with David Dinkins for Mayor buttons worn daily throughout both his campaigns. That is, until affirmative action came up. She had worked hard to reach her position as a senior IT manager in a major company, and having worked for her for so long I can say she deserved her position completely. But she was strongly opposed to affirmative action, as well as race or ethnicity based recognitions or awards as being – I hope this paraphrase doesn’t come out wrong – demeaning to her achievements and those of other minorities who had achieved success in the industry.

    In fact, her position was more unbending than mine as a conservative Republican. While opposing numerical targets (quotas), I maintained in our discussions that possibly some consideration (extra SAT points, a 0.25 margin on high school GPA, etc.) might be given to minority students from underperforming schools (NOT black sons of Scarsdale attorneys), and special tutoring might be provided for the first year or two of college to bring them up to speed. She opposed even these special considerations.

    I re-read part of my post and want to clarify; when I said “demeaningâ€, I was not indicating some snobbishness or feeling of being superior on her part. I mentioned her age to indicate she had been in the business world for over thirty years, and had encountered more than a few instances where her competency for her position was questioned – more subtly in later years no doubt – under the assumption her advancement was based on being pushed because of her race and sex rather than her own accomplishment. So yes, that does happen, in a real world story.

  13. #13
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amethyst
    My point is, MLK pointed out that there are still inequities amongst Whites, Blacks, and other minorities - issues that go far deeper than quotas etc... - but that if we FIX the SYSTEM (and it really is a f'd up system) then we would be "equal" to one another.
    Still? MLK made that famous speach almost 42 years ago. Since then we've seen congress pass The Voting Rights Act of 1965; The Civil Rights Act of 1964; The Civil Rights Act of 1968; The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988; The Civil Rights Act of 1991; Untold numbers of court decisions at both the supreme court and lesser court level; millions spent on desegregation of public schools; a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies dedicated to enforcing laws guaranteeing equal opportunity in housing, education, the workplace. Are you suggesting that none of that has any effect?

    As a WOC, I have experienced the nastiness & hostility that comes with being hired in a company that participates in AA. No matter how smart I was or how well I actually did my job or the fact that I blew other, there was always some ass that felt like the only reason I got the job or promotion was to fill a quota. To have to fight that, along with wondering whether or not you really were hired only to fill a quota, is a serious mind f*ck.
    I've worked in government jobs where that feeling was very predominant. All the more reason to eliminate it.

    In addition to banning the practice of Aff-ACT, A&M will also ban the practice of giving preference to legacies & alumni and create more scholarships for lower-income students.
    I'm in favor of getting rid of giving preferences to legacies and alumni for the same reason I favor getting rid of all preferences. However, both Texas A&M and the University of Texas still engage in racial preferences. When the Supreme Court struck down racial preferences in student admissions, the Texas Legislature passed a law requiring both the UT and A&M systems to accept any student that graduates in the top 10% of his/her high school class, no matter their qualifications. They did this with the stated aim of keeping the status quo of minority preferences. There is no question that some less qualified students are being admitted to both UT and A&M, simply because they graduate from a minority school. This has also had the undesired effect of encouraging students to take less demanding classes so as to keep their class rank high.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  14. #14
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    This has also had the undesired effect of encouraging students to take less demanding classes so as to keep their class rank high.
    It also seriously reduces the quality of the institution in question.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  15. #15
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    It also seriously reduces the quality of the institution in question.
    Not only that but there have been news accounts of high schools with graduating classes of say 100, reporting 20 - 25 students in the "top 10%". Must be some kind of new math.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  16. #16
    Featured Member Amethyst's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    795
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Still? MLK made that famous speach almost 42 years ago. Since then we've seen congress pass The Voting Rights Act of 1965; The Civil Rights Act of 1964; The Civil Rights Act of 1968; The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988; The Civil Rights Act of 1991; Untold numbers of court decisions at both the supreme court and lesser court level; millions spent on desegregation of public schools; a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies dedicated to enforcing laws guaranteeing equal opportunity in housing, education, the workplace. Are you suggesting that none of that has any effect?
    No, Destiny, I didn't suggest that. I'm suggesting it's probably not a wise idea to use a teeny portion of MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech to back up your anti-Affirmative Action argument, when MLK (and that speech) was in fact very much PRO Affirmative Action.

    But since you brought it up :

    Don't you think there is a real problem with the system when Congress has to pass ACTS in order to "guarantee" minorities the right to equality - especially after 1963? Shouldn't the first one have been enough instead of putting an expiration date on it or revising it to cover NEW methods of discrimination? Frankly, these Acts do nothing to guarantee equal opptys for minorites (economic nor ethnic minorities). You can't change people - you can just sue 'em - and the most discriminatory people in the U.S. system are those in power (the overwhelming majority of which are rich White men) who are scared sh*tless of losing that power and create constructs to prevent others from moving up or taking some of that power.

    It's all luck of the draw, really. Euros conquered the Natives and brought over slaves. They won first dibs on the power and now most have a problem giving it up. Some would say it's human nature, but I disagree. I don't think people are born thinking they're better than anyone else - our system just instills it within them. Could've just as easily gone the other way, but alas, this is the order in which our quasi-caste system has turned out.

    I've worked in government jobs where that feeling was very predominant. All the more reason to eliminate it.
    Can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not...I think so considering that was posted under my opinion that AF-Act should be eliminated.

    I'm in favor of getting rid of giving preferences to legacies and alumni for the same reason I favor getting rid of all preferences. However, both Texas A&M and the University of Texas still engage in racial preferences. When the Supreme Court struck down racial preferences in student admissions, the Texas Legislature passed a law requiring both the UT and A&M systems to accept any student that graduates in the top 10% of his/her high school class, no matter their qualifications. They did this with the stated aim of keeping the status quo of minority preferences. There is no question that some less qualified students are being admitted to both UT and A&M, simply because they graduate from a minority school. This has also had the undesired effect of encouraging students to take less demanding classes so as to keep their class rank high.
    Interesting assumption that the less qualified students are coming from minority schools rather than "White" schools, but whatever. Kinda like those legacies, huh, which I've had personal experience with, working on the admission team in an elite private boarding school. I personally think that the 10% rule is another good intention gone wrong that should be tweaked and it's not having the "desired" effect anyway:

    "The law hasn't boosted minority enrollment much beyond what it was under affirmative action, which UT-Austin will begin using again next year.This year's UT-Austin freshman class contains 4.5 percent blacks, 17 percent Hispanics and 18 percent Asians.
    More than 60 percent of students admitted in recent years under the top 10 percent law have been white."



    And...



    The law hasn't had nearly the impact on Texas A&M. About 50 percent of A&M freshmen are admitted under the law, and A&M officials said 99 percent of those students would have been admitted anyway."


    And finally:

    "
    Marta Tienda, professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University, has studied the impact of the Texas law. She has found no evidence of a "brain drain" of top students to other states and no evidence that students ranked in the second decile of their class are being disproportionately squeezed out of their college choices relative to the average Texas student.

    But Tienda said Thursday that UT does need more control over its admissions in order to achieve its mission of attracting top students in all disciplines, including music and the arts.

    She said the law could be modified by capping automatic admissions or rescinding students' choice of campus."


    http://www.uh.edu/ednews/2004/hc/200...enpercent.html

    I read an excellent suggestion about students who are taking easier classes in order to not lower their GPA, and that was to require students to take harder classes (like AP classes) at their high school (which would actually go towards their GPA) and their "fluff" classes should be taken at a community college and would only count as college credit - not factored into their GPA. Great tweak, IMO.

    Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that most of the "White" schools have larger access to technology (computers, etc.), the latest-editions of books, and teachers with Masters or PhD's than do the lower-income schools (both poor ethnic minority schools and poor White schools). Therefore, it makes some sense to me that the 10% rule levels the playing field and gives lower-income students the oppty to gain the same education as their "White"-school graduate peers.

    Edit: changed "out on a line" to "out on a limb". Was having a Yogi moment
    Last edited by Amethyst; 04-18-2005 at 12:12 PM.


  17. #17
    Veteran Member Hello~Kitty's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    345
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Thankyou Amethyst for posting here I am eagerly reading your posts from now on..... I am curious to get your take on what would serve as a better policy to achieve the honorable goal of AF in schools as well as the workplace.
    Example of discrimination (Imho):

    the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !

    http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590




  18. #18
    Featured Member Amethyst's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    795
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Not only that but there have been news accounts of high schools with graduating classes of say 100, reporting 20 - 25 students in the "top 10%". Must be some kind of new math.
    Uh-huh. I guess we can conclude that the poorer schools (ahem, minority schools, right?) are pumping out unqualified students by overreporting. I'm not condoning overreporting (it's fraud and should be illegal), but some reasons behind it include:

    *Not counting class rank ties (students w/ same GPAs).

    *Using a specified GPA as a guideline for being admitted into the 10% program (the example I read was of a 3.7 and then when more than 10% of those students meet or exceed that goal, the admins don't want to "punish" (not sure if that's the right word) those students that MET the goal.

    *Students are on the cusp and again, counselors want to give a little edge to students who worked really hard and missed it by a teeny %.

    FYI, all types of Texas high schools are being accused of overreporting, one of which is Westlake High, a predominantly rich "White" school in Austin and absolutely one of the best here in TX. So I wouldn't go so far as to say that all schools that are overreporting are bringing down the education standards at higher institutions.

    Whoops - forgot to add source: http://www.austinchronicle.com/issu...s_feature6.html
    Last edited by Amethyst; 04-18-2005 at 01:53 PM.


  19. #19
    Featured Member Amethyst's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    795
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Aww, blush blush - thank YOU for the warm welcome!! I enjoy reading your views and other the not-so-conservative views here (I even appreciate the ultra-con views as there are times when good points are made) but rarely respond because I spend most of political genius on more political action oriented boards and I don't want to get into ugly arguements with fellow dancers. Every now and then tho, I see something that makes me want to holler

    *ends smoochfest*

    Gosh HK, I wish I knew the answer to your question! I know what it's NOT, but can only base my answer upon my own experiences and the knowledge I've gained by researching the issue. Money and fear of losing that money are the biggest factors contributing to discrimination.

    In regard to institutes of higher education, I think the 10% rule (with some serious tweaks) is a great start in the effort to level the playing field for reasons I mentioned earlier. I also think somewhat equal funding among public schools is another step in the right direction - start as early as possible. But there has to be true equality and not a shift AGAINST the current "majority" as I've unfortunately witnessed with affirmative action.

    As far as employment goes...people hire who they want and don't hire who they don't. There's deep-seeded racism and prejudice within the U.S. and not everyone is ready to let that go. People are discriminated against everyday for different reasons: too Black, too White, too Hispanic, too Asian, too fat, too poor, too rich, too Muslim, too Catholic...and it all boils down to an individual's beliefs about a particular group. If I've been taught all my life that Australians are lazy good-fer-nothings who have done nothing but persecute my people (whoever they may be) for decades, then I might not be so inclined to hire an Australian person when I meet one. Or I might want to be like the asshole in California (I think it was) who fired all White staffers on board and hired an all Black staff.

    Recognizing that this racism exists in all groups, but NOT within every individual, and that there are such things as "racist constructs" is another good start. Also, recognizing the fact that no one in this country is entitled to anything not guaranteed by the golden rule or the constitution. IOW, just b/c your skin color is THIS doesn't mean you have a right to a position over a person with THIS skin color. Applies to $$$ too.


    It's so sad that we have to rely on government programs and intervention in order to make people do the right thing or hire the right person.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
    Thankyou Amethyst for posting here I am eagerly reading your posts from now on..... I am curious to get your take on what would serve as a better policy to achieve the honorable goal of AF in schools as well as the workplace.


  20. #20
    Veteran Member Hello~Kitty's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    345
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Thankyou for the detailed reply to my question Amethyst

    I read this Op-ED * today and thought it might add to the current discussion in this thread.

    * for those not familar with NY Times website, you will need to register but it is free
    Example of discrimination (Imho):

    the only prudent way to treat Islamics in the US and western europe today is along the same vein as Russians and Eastern Europeans were treated during the 'cold war' days - with some degree of suspicion warranted until proven otherwise !

    http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44590




  21. #21
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amethyst
    No, Destiny, I didn't suggest that. I'm suggesting it's probably not a wise idea to use a teeny portion of MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech to back up your anti-Affirmative Action argument, when MLK (and that speech) was in fact very much PRO Affirmative Action.
    You can paste the entire speach here if you want. You'll find many times Rev. King calling for an end to discrimination and segregation. What you won't find is him calling for racial quotas.

    Can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not...I think so considering that was posted under my opinion that AF-Act should be eliminated.
    The point was, that it is a natural by-product of Affirmative Action. If you are going to hire less-qualified people simply because they are a member of a minority group in order to meet racial quotas, then people are going to assume that all minorities are the beneficiaries of the program and are therefore unqualified.

    Interesting assumption that the less qualified students are coming from minority schools rather than "White" schools, but whatever. Kinda like those legacies, huh, which I've had personal experience with, working on the admission team in an elite private boarding school. I personally think that the 10% rule is another good intention gone wrong that should be tweaked and it's not having the "desired" effect anyway:
    It's not my assumption. Generally speaking, the higher the socio-economic status of the students' families, the higher they score on standardized tests such as the SAT. Since families in higher socio-economic neighborhoods tend to be predominately white, its just logic. One interesting side note. A few years ago the SAT people did an in-depth study on race and how it pertains to SAT scores. They found that race played no part in predicting how a student will score on the SAT. The major factor in determining SAT scores was the socio-economic status of the student's family. In other words, rich blacks, hispanics, and asians, did just as well as rich whites.

    "The law hasn't boosted minority enrollment much beyond what it was under affirmative action, which UT-Austin will begin using again next year.This year's UT-Austin freshman class contains 4.5 percent blacks, 17 percent Hispanics and 18 percent Asians.
    More than 60 percent of students admitted in recent years under the top 10 percent law have been white."
    I don't care what color their skin is, are they the best qualified applicants?

    The law hasn't had nearly the impact on Texas A&M. About 50 percent of A&M freshmen are admitted under the law, and A&M officials said 99 percent of those students would have been admitted anyway."
    A&M has a certain reputation. I'm guessing that for a lot of minorities, A&M is not their first choice.

    Marta Tienda is a well-known advocate for affirmative action. I'd hardly call her an unbiased researcher. Here's a quote from an interview she did with Carnegie Reporter:

    CR: And you considered it imperative to support your arguments with data and detailed research?

    MT: Absolutely.

    There's a term for going out with the expressed aim of finding data to support your arguments. The term is not science.

    Instead of asking an affirmative action advocate from Princeton, we could just ask UT President Larry Faulkner what he thinks of the 10% rule:

    If the top 10 percent law remains unchanged, Faulkner said Wednesday in his annual state of the university speech, UT will not be able to achieve its goal of reducing its student population and "must degrade the educational experience for everyone through overpopulation."

    'Unhealthy for Texas'
    "Students are not one-dimensional," Faulkner said. "It is unhealthy for Texas and for this university to admit such a large percentage on a single criterion and to ignore everything else in an applicant's record."

    I read an excellent suggestion about students who are taking easier classes in order to not lower their GPA, and that was to require students to take harder classes (like AP classes) at their high school (which would actually go towards their GPA) and their "fluff" classes should be taken at a community college and would only count as college credit - not factored into their GPA. Great tweak, IMO.
    Personally, I think a better way is to give more credit for AP classes than regular classes. For example, a B in an AP class would be counted as equivalent to an A in a regular class. The schools may already be allowed to do this, I'm not sure. However, even that is subject to manipulation by the schools. The real problem is that a high school diploma is no assurance that the graduate has even a rudimentary education, much less the skills needed to succeed in college.

    Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that most of the "White" schools have larger access to technology (computers, etc.), the latest-editions of books, and teachers with Masters or PhD's than do the lower-income schools (both poor ethnic minority schools and poor White schools). Therefore, it makes some sense to me that the 10% rule levels the playing field and gives lower-income students the oppty to gain the same education as their "White"-school graduate peers.
    I wouldn't exactly call that a daring prediction, in fact, I'd say it was right on, except maybe the part about the PhD's. However, I used to live in a suburb where the school district was a "rich" one. They required all their teachers to have masters degrees so maybe some schools require doctorates.

    I have four objections to the "10% rule".



    1. It was enacted as a way to continue a system of racial quotas, which I object to.
    2. While it may "level the playing field". It does so at a much lower level. The bottom of a swimming pool may very well be level. Rather than drag everyone to the bottom to drown, I'd rather we teach everyone to swim.
    3. It is arbitrary. You know how those school district lines are drawn, they are crazy, same with the attendance zones for individual schools. Earlier you said something about, "It's all luck of the draw, really...Could've just as easily gone the other way, but alas, this is the order in which our quasi-caste system has turned out..." Yet under the 10% rule you could have two kids living across the street from one another make the exact same SAT score, have the exact same GPA and one get into UT and one not, simply because the dividing line of their respective high schools runs between them. How can you defend that?
    4. Lastly, it doesn't solve anything. You say you are in favor of giving, "lower-income students the oppty to gain the same education as their "White"-school graduate peers." A very noble goal. Yet I'll say again, college admission standards are supposed to do one thing. Assure that the student is capable of doing college level work. If you let a student into college whose only qualification is that he attends a lower-income school, what you are presenting him with is a false opportunity. If he can't do the work, you haven't done him any favors by setting him up to fail. The only alternative is to lower the academic standards of the entire institution and grant him a watered-down degree. In such a case, you haven't done society a favor by setting him up to succeed.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  22. #22
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amethyst
    Uh-huh. I guess we can conclude that the poorer schools (ahem, minority schools, right?) are pumping out unqualified students by overreporting. I'm not condoning overreporting (it's fraud and should be illegal), but some reasons behind it include:
    I didn't say anything about "poorer schools".

    *Not counting class rank ties (students w/ same GPAs).
    Yes, the kids feel so much better about themselves that way. If there is one thing that is extremely important to the public education system it's making sure little Johnny feels good about himself.

    *Using a specified GPA as a guideline for being admitted into the 10% program (the example I read was of a 3.7 and then when more than 10% of those students meet or exceed that goal, the admins don't want to "punish" (not sure if that's the right word) those students that MET the goal.
    Ah....so 25 can be one-tenth of 100. And we wonder why the rest of the world is killing us in math.

    *Students are on the cusp and again, counselors want to give a little edge to students who worked really hard and missed it by a teeny %.
    If the system is too arbitrary, lets trash it.

    FYI, all types of Texas high schools are being accused of overreporting, one of which is Westlake High, a predominantly rich "White" school in Austin and absolutely one of the best here in TX. So I wouldn't go so far as to say that all schools that are overreporting are bringing down the education standards at higher institutions.
    Again, I did not characterize the schools one way or another, you did.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  23. #23
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
    Thankyou for the detailed reply to my question Amethyst

    I read this Op-ED * today and thought it might add to the current discussion in this thread.

    * for those not familar with NY Times website, you will need to register but it is free
    Excellent editorial H~K, thanks for posting it. I'd definitely agree that the biggest obstacle to improving public education is the education establishment. The fact that the NYTs is starting to say so as well bodes well for the future.

    For what its worth, for all my opposition to racial quotas, I am all for trying new things to improve minority performance in education. Putting the basic argument of fairness aside, if our country is going to compete in the world in the future, its vital that our growing minority population be well equpped to help.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  24. #24
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    I hate to let something as trivial as facts get in the way of a lively discussion, but for a fact the city public schools in Washington DC, New York City etc. have both the highest percentage of minority students and the highest per-student educational spending (around $14,000 per student versus an average figure of about $9,000 for suburban public schools). If there is any validity to the claims that these city public schools don't provide equal access to computers, up to date textbooks etc. it obviously has nothing to do with educational funding levels.

  25. #25
    Featured Member Amethyst's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    795
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: hmmm, who's discriminating against whom ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    You can paste the entire speach here if you want. You'll find many times Rev. King calling for an end to discrimination and segregation. What you won't find is him calling for racial quotas.
    I won't because I'm sure you know how to Google and if you were really interested in what Rev. King had to say about aff-act you'd do so. But if you READ the speech or any of his other works, you will find that he is calling for an end to systematic inequality against "Negroes" and there has to be some form of special treatment given to minorities in order to put them on the same level as Whites after such a long period of discrimination, poor schooling, etc... So again, while I agree with the statement that "Affirmative Action is wrong", using MLK to back up your argument only weakens it b/c he was Pro Affirmative Action.


    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    The point was, that it is a natural by-product of Affirmative Action. If you are going to hire less-qualified people simply because they are a member of a minority group in order to meet racial quotas, then people are going to assume that all minorities are the beneficiaries of the program and are therefore unqualified.
    Only those with preconceived notions about the abilities of minorities and their own sense of entitlement will assume that minorities are not only hired b/c of affirmative action, but that they MUST be unqualified as well (unlike their White woman counterparts - you know the biggest beneficiaries of Aff-Act - who were hired b/c of affirm-act).


    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    It's not my assumption. Generally speaking, the higher the socio-economic status of the students' families, the higher they score on standardized tests such as the SAT. Since families in higher socio-economic neighborhoods tend to be predominately white, its just logic. One interesting side note. A few years ago the SAT people did an in-depth study on race and how it pertains to SAT scores. They found that race played no part in predicting how a student will score on the SAT. The major factor in determining SAT scores was the socio-economic status of the student's family. In other words, rich blacks, hispanics, and asians, did just as well as rich whites.
    So then what IS your position exactly? Your first response in this thread tied unqualified students and minority students together and later you criticize the Ivy League schools for not looking into racial preferences in their findings about grade inflation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    A&M has a certain reputation. I'm guessing that for a lot of minorities, A&M is not their first choice.
    What does that have to do with the fact that 99% of those admitted under the 10% rule would have been admitted anyway? Or are we talking about unqualified minorities again who would maybe would have brought that 99% number down?

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Marta Tienda is a well-known advocate for affirmative action. I'd hardly call her an unbiased researcher. Here's a quote from an interview she did with Carnegie Reporte
    Jonah Goldberg is a well-known ultra right-wing conservative and his article was written in a well-known ultra right-wing conservative online mag. No one questioned his bias. He has an opinon on affirmative-action and finds research to give weight to his opinion. LIKE FAULKNER, Tienda believes that the UT system needs to have more control over it's admissions process and suggests, again like Faulkner, that capping admissions is an effective means of fixing the overpopulation problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    -I wouldn't exactly call that a daring prediction, in fact, I'd say it was right on, except maybe the part about the PhD's. However, I used to live in a suburb where the school district was a "rich" one. They required all their teachers to have masters degrees so maybe some schools require doctorates.
    Destiny, regarding my "daring prediction", it's called stating-the-obvious. Anyway, I didn't say that PhD's or even Masters were required - just that there are more teachers with these degrees teaching at "rich" schools versus poor ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    I have four objections to the "10% rule".
    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny


    1. It was enacted as a way to continue a system of racial quotas, which I object to.
    2. While it may "level the playing field". It does so at a much lower level. The bottom of a swimming pool may very well be level. Rather than drag everyone to the bottom to drown, I'd rather we teach everyone to swim.
    3. It is arbitrary. You know how those school district lines are drawn, they are crazy, same with the attendance zones for individual schools. Earlier you said something about, "It's all luck of the draw, really...Could've just as easily gone the other way, but alas, this is the order in which our quasi-caste system has turned out..." Yet under the 10% rule you could have two kids living across the street from one another make the exact same SAT score, have the exact same GPA and one get into UT and one not, simply because the dividing line of their respective high schools runs between them. How can you defend that?
    4. Lastly, it doesn't solve anything. You say you are in favor of giving, "lower-income students the oppty to gain the same education as their "White"-school graduate peers." A very noble goal. Yet I'll say again, college admission standards are supposed to do one thing. Assure that the student is capable of doing college level work. If you let a student into college whose only qualification is that he attends a lower-income school, what you are presenting him with is a false opportunity. If he can't do the work, you haven't done him any favors by setting him up to fail. The only alternative is to lower the academic standards of the entire institution and grant him a watered-down degree. In such a case, you haven't done society a favor by setting him up to succeed.
    1. I respectfully disagree, but if it was created to continue a system of racial quotas, it missed it's target.

    2. Agreed

    3. LOL, who's defending it? I have already stated that the 10% rule is a good intention gone wrong and actually prefer the idea of the A&M president actually visiting poorer schools to at least let them know they have the option of attending. Something that historically has not been done, particularly some of the poorer or minority schools here in SAT. The example you give is a perfect testimony as to why the 10% rule needs work.

    The school I worked at hadn't even THOUGHT of attracting minority students (with the exception of non-nationals) until the current Director was hired. Our office sent literature, paid special visits, etc... to these predom-minority or poor schools because most of the students & their parents had never even heard of our school. I heard #'s of stories of how those that had heard about the school were told you had to know someone there, be a legacy, be rich (it's an expensive school, but financial aid had always been available and taken advantage of) or that it was a boarding school only (it's not and the boarding program was killed in 02). It was like a well-kept secret amongst the "elite" in SAT and throughout the country.

    Once apps for admission started coming in, and a standardized test was given, surprise, surprise a lot of the minority and lower-income students were highly qualified compared with current students. Those that were under par on scores, but still viable candidates, were given study plans and tutoring in order to prepare them for the next admission cycle whereas their apps would be reconsidered based upon their progression.

    On the flip side, the Director had a lovely time fighting with the Board of Trustees over blocking the admission of legacies, or people that "know" people, or big names - even though their kids were intellectual morons or had huge behavior problems. Talk about lowering the standards of a school.

    Oh, and BTW, my "quasi-caste system" statement was done in a totally different context and had naught to do with defending the 10% rule.

    4. Actually, what I said was that it makes sense that the 10% rule would give lower-income students etc... , but I won't object to being attributed with having that noble goal. Are you saying you DON'T want the same? Let's see - lower-income students don't start with an equal oppty, so instead of giving them a chance to work hard and gain equal footing, we should just leave them as is, right? It isn't necessary to lower the standards of the college. Remedial or "catch-up" classes are offered on college campuses and they don't count towards a student's degree. If all students had had a level playing field from the beginning NONE of this would be necessary.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. people discriminating against us
    By fairydust111 in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-16-2006, 01:14 PM
  2. Hmmm
    By Deogol in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-10-2006, 04:11 PM
  3. Dancers...Discriminating?Profilers?Racists?
    By BigGreenMnM in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 05-12-2005, 01:31 PM
  4. Dancers...Discriminating?Profiler?Racist?
    By BigGreenMnM in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-12-2005, 05:47 AM
  5. Dancers...Discriminating?Profilers?Racists?
    By BigGreenMnM in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-11-2005, 02:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •