TL;DR
Not surprised. If you are too lazy to write "Too long, did not read," I have low expectations regarding reading prowess and motivation.
Not surprised. If you are too lazy to write "Too long, did not read," I have low expectations regarding reading prowess and motivation.
This is true. Native corporation preferences are one example. They are written into the law. But that isn't the only discrimination. Halliburton is not a minority company, but they get lots of contracts somehow. There are lots of forms of discrimination and minority businesses is just one form. That being said, it needs to go. The trick now is to hire a minority shell company to bid the contract for you and then sub you the work. That is not exactly fair either.
But we are also talking apples and oranges. College Admissions is different because there is an educational value to bringing in diverse students. The purpose of minority contract preferences really does not add value to a project. It does bring some value in trying to provide more opportunity to disadvantaged groups though bids, but who is it really helping when they just sub out the work and skim the top for just getting the contract awarded. It should be lowest qualifying bid. That is the public good, regardless or race, color, creed, religion, etc...
A
anon_j0hjgb7us6s1a
Guest
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/article85591172.html
Minority babies outnumber whites among US infants
Minority babies outnumber whites among US infants
A
anon_j0hjgb7us6s1a
Guest
I'd just like to say I don't give a rats ass. Your life is what YOU make it.
Easy with the common sense, some won't understand it.
First, please don't assume all believe in "sin" if you are indeed using the biblical definition. The word is worthless to many of us in this country. Man has proven over time that morality is relative. We simply decide what is morally right and wrong in society as a whole. The white race helped improve the country along with many other races, the white man bullying their way into the country and then apologizing for it later was stating the obvious. Instead of apologizing maybe they should have considered giving the land back to its rightful owners. You're not being punished for anything if u steal someone else's land. I think u might have it backwards. I believe I just made a factual statement but u seem to think all is good since the white man helped improve someone else's property for them and then followed up with the word "sin" to mask it. Not sure what your debating here, i thought I was simply stating the obvious about the white man bullying their way into this country. That's all
So, I am working along side my 'supposed' friend and had been for a long while when he starts saying that 'we' the white people owe 'us' the black people reparations for the injustices committed by 'us' against their forefathers? and that he is tired of being discriminated against. in which I replied: I was born in 1962, anything that happened prior to that I could care less about, I don't owe you a damn thing, we are working the same job at the same level with the same pay, how is that discrimination? Shut up, think, and then talk to me! We never spoke about that again....
A
anon_j0hjgb7us6s1a
Guest
The 'native Americans' did not all arrive here at the same time. I doubt any of them had a title deed to any land. Most of them were okay with taking land from their neighbors if they were powerful enough. If white people were totally bad there would be no reservations or free blacks. But again, people want to focus on the shade of skin when humans are all just humans. It is the different cultures that separate us
If your position is that blacks are under represented because they are more likely to come impoverished backgrounds, my question is, what about Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and Whites that come from an impoverished background? Don't they deserve. a leg up just as well?
Level they playing field by admitting more students from lower economic backgrounds.
Not all Blacks are from impoverished backgrounds.
Level they playing field by admitting more students from lower economic backgrounds.
Not all Blacks are from impoverished backgrounds.
Last edited:
The problem I have is not the push for diversity but rather individuals gaining admission based upon the broader socioeconomic profile of a race.
All of the things you said about AA is likely true and factual, but the issue is there are also whites, Hispanics and Asians that come from the same social/financial environment that you mentioned, and they shouldn't be treated any differently because their broader race is more heavily represented at the school.
The math is never going to foot to equal representation, and that's not due to any race being better than another. It's math. If you've got 15 slots to fill and choose from 20 purple peope and 5 green people, the max green representation you can achieve is 33% and that is if all green people are qualified.
I think you hit on this, but I think there is a larger issue with admissions tests and the weight schools place on them. One of the most successful people in my company is a guy that scored a 22 on his ACT and went the non-traditional route of JUCO and then a larger program to finish. Why is he successful? Bc he's got fire, cares and will do whatever it takes to drive results.
There should be applications with no names, the key numbers and involvement. All schools should be open to taking a wider range of kids whose test scores fall a bit below the average but they show a record of strong success. But instead, you get these schools that will nearly completely count a kid out bc he or she doesn't have a 31 on the ACT.
The process of admissions should go a little deeper and have a little more context, IMO.
I am not sure where we disagree. You basically repeated my entire point. I only used African-Americans as an example because that was accusation of the case - that she was denied admission due to African American preferences.
There are differences though. The level of disadvantage is not equal among different groups. Native Americans and African-Americans have sizable statistical disadvantages as a group. Asians are mostly on-par with whites except first generation Asian-american families. Hispanics vary widely as a group. Cubans do much better than may other groups. But as a group, Hispanics tend to be better-off than African-Americans as a group. My point here is that diversity is not achieved by using a white/minority paradigm. You need to consider a much wider spectrum. Especially for Native Americans who are in many ways worse off than African-Americans, but are completely lost in the debate. You also need to recognize that each minority group has different issues that need to be supported differently.
A
anon_j0hjgb7us6s1a
Guest
I love anecdotal arguments - they can never be rebutted because the facts are so few and far between.
Analagous to the "I saw a black woman using food stamps to buy steak and lobster" or "I know a woman that was making six figures on welfare". Even if all these types of anecdotal and unprovable stories are true, using exceptions to prove the rule is always a terrible methodology.
Analagous to the "I saw a black woman using food stamps to buy steak and lobster" or "I know a woman that was making six figures on welfare". Even if all these types of anecdotal and unprovable stories are true, using exceptions to prove the rule is always a terrible methodology.
I'm not sure I follow. I never said I had any dissent with what you said. I was commenting in general on the situaton.
I will say I disagree with your statement that the level of disadvantage is not equal among groups. That's what the statistics say when you look at the dataset as whole, but at the end of the day, we're talking about individuals.
Socioeconomic issues are colorblind and impact all races. A kid that lives in the projects that has drug addicts for parents that don't care about education is a theme for someone across all races.
My only point was those kids should be treated the same, regardless of the color of their skin, bc it doesn't help a white, Asian or Hispanic kid that comes from the same background that the data suggests he's a less prevalent example of his overall race. He or she is from the same socioeconomic environment and should be treated the same as everyone of all skin colors from that background.
Exceptions are terrible for generalizing, yes. However, exceptions are also a great example illustrating why one shouldn't generalize.
Individuals are different and shouldn't be treated based upon what data suggests for a broader group.
Similar threads
