Sunday, October 16, 2005

Understanding Affirmative Action

So last night, I went out partying studying my ass off with C, J, and L1. Amidst the G-protein cascades and apoptosis, the topic of social liberalism and affirmative action came up, at which point C mentioned that he was against affirmative action. He said some sentence that combined the words "dumb people" and "getting in" and "just because of race" and "quota". Now, I don't begrude C, specifically; after all, he is a self-proclaimed apolitico and vehemently despises all talk of politics. He doesn't like his political positions discussed because he feels it's divisive, and bottom line, he understands that he doesn't know as much about politics as some. But I tell this story not to lambast C but to question why so many opponents of affirmative action never seem to understand what it is. C is not the first and he certainly will not be the last, but all too often, I run across people who roll their eyes when affirmative action comes up, but when asked to describe why they feel that way, spout some antiquated description of affirmative action that most pro-affirmative action people would agree is unconstitutional. Affirmative action is essentially admission or hiring by institutions that are intended to factor in past and existing oppression and injustice against a minority group. Not a racial minority group -- a minority group. Affirmative action has been positively used to increase admission of people disadvantaged because of race, gender, or economics. The idea is basically that not everyone has equal access to educational opportunity or equal treatment under the law, so that injustice should be accounted for when admitting people to positions that will benefit not only themselves but their community. Contrary to popular belief, those who benefitted most from affirmative action are not people of colour but white women; prior to affirmative action, institutions of higher education, for example, were overwhelming populated by rich white men, who, by thus having better access to higher education (and thereby better employment opportunities) were able to perpetuate their own white supremacist patriarchy to the detriment of every other group. As we were first understanding how to employ affirmative action, some institutions, particularly those who were against affirmative action but were mandated by law to employ it, abused the policy by establishing quotas. This was a situation in which institutions sought out a certain number of people of a given race or gender, and filled those gaps with people who met those minority group standards, often irregardless of their academic standing. In many ways, quotas were used by people hoping to set up those admitted by affirmative action to failure, with the intention of thereby debunking the benefit of affirmative action. In 1978, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled against quotas, making the use of quotas illegal, but setting the precedent saying that use of race as a factor in university admissions was not unconstitutional. Thus, for me, the argument that I've heard time and time again that universities are still using quotas to admit unqualified black students to universities is not only racist but disingenous; universities have done away with quotas because it has been found unconstitutional and such policies would never be allowed by the federal government (especially at universities like Cornell which receives state funding). Speaking of Cornell, I will use it as a model for how affirmative action is generally employed at most schools. You get a pool of applicants with varying GPAs and SAT scores. You establish two cut-off points: automatic entry based on overwhelmingly stellar grades and SAT scores and automatic rejection based on abysmal grades and SAT scores. Immediately, you trim the top 5% based on grades and stick them into the acceptance pile. Then you trim the bottom 25% and stick them into the rejection pile. Guess what -- you then have a pile of students, still 50% of your applicants, that have the kinds of scores that would probably indicate they would fare well in the school but which you have too many of to distinguish between. How can you decide whether Robert with the 3.0 GPA and the 1450 or Omarion with the 3.0 GPA and the 1450 should get the next spot? In other words, how do you distinguish between two equally qualified candidates when you only have a fixed number of spots available? It's at this point that race, gender, economic factors and extracurriculars come into play. Assuming everything else being equal, proponents of affirmative action would say that Omarion should get the spot because a) as a black man, his community has faced unbelievable oppression, bigotry and discrimination by America and institutions of higher education and people of his community are underrepresented, so rewarding him with the opportunity for improved education will help elevate his community and b) as a black man, he continues to face racial and possibly even economic oppression that has likely disadvantaged him in his life up until this point. Earning a 1450 on your SAT scores in a school that encourages most black men to fail out and end up in jail is a harder accomplishment than earning a 1450 on your SATs when you have access to prep schools and are encouraged by teachers to succeed (based on prevailing racial stereotypes that characterize whites as more academic than blacks). Does that mean that Omarion will always get the spot over Robert? Absolutely not -- because race is only one factor in this middle pile, roughly equal to being captain of the debate team, playing a trumpet, being from a poor background, being a woman, or even having had a close family member be an alumnus of the institution. The idea is that to build a well-rounded student body is to recognize that a good student is not necessarily the sum of his GPA; it's exactly the same reason why many students now take the time off to work or do volunteer services during school or immediately after graduation in order to improve their application -- universities have come to understand that a good student is a well-rounded student who brings a unique perspective to the student body, either because of their unique interests or their unique ethnic, racial, economic or gender-specific background. Also, what irritates me is this sense of entitlement that opponents of affirmative action cite, as if Omarion has stolen the empty spot from Robert. Omarion did not use his race to steal Robert's spot because Robert did not have a right to the vacancy any more so than Omarion did. To assume that it was Robert's spot until Omarion came along is to assume that the white person had a claim over the spot over the person of colour. Not only is that untrue given the model of affirmative action usually employed by businesses and universities, but it smacks of white supremacist thought to me. Now, I don't really have a gripe with those who think race should not be a factor in that middle pile that I describe above. That is a difference of opinion I can live with, and there are many counter-arguments against affirmative action used in that middle pile (after all, it's not a perfect system) as I could cite for it (including the fact that in California, abolishing affirmative action only lead to most schools having a student body that was primarily white and Asian, indicating that without affirmative action, we really would continue to have disparities within higher education admission practices). But as I said, what bothers me is when people prefer to imagine affirmative action to be something it's not in order to hate it. As much as I think people should just say what they think and be willing to be wrong, on some things, I think it's important to know the facts. If you're going to be so flagrantly against affirmative action, I think it helps to know what it is.


Blogger Sheldiz said...

You're right, Jenn about what affirmative action SHOULD be and how it SHOULD work and I don't think many people would disagree with the system if it was set up correctly and used as you say to "distinguish between two equally qualified candidates". But this is not always the case. ESPECIALLY in college admissions. and ESPECIALLY in a historically all-white school that is getting heat for not being diverse enough. I can use myself and and my best friend from college, who is filipino, as an example. Not bragging here, just making a point --- i had an excellent GPA, fantastic SAT scores, an insane amount of extracurrics and volunteer experience, and 4 years as a varsity athlete. My roommate, on the other hand, left highschool with a less than mediocre GPA, bad by all standards SAT scores, and no extracurrics. We both got into Villanova. But that's not what bothers me. Maybe she had a kick ass essay. Maybe her family donated some money. I don't know. What bothers me is that she got GRANTS and SCHOLARSHIPS that WERE NOT NEED-BASED from the University to attend. I got ZERO money. None whatsover. Over the course of four years at 'nova, i paid almost $60,000 more than her. Of course she's one of my best friends and i was fortunate enough to have some family help support the cost of my education -- so i don't REALLY harbor any bad feelings about the situation. I'm just using it as an example of how affirmative action can totally miss the mark and why some people probably have this bad image and disrespect for the system like you describe. I fully support affirmative action when it is used correctly and fairly, but I've also seen what happens when its not. I think if more people were aware of how its SUPPOSED to work, perhaps more people would try to understand its use and ensure its being used in the right manner.

10/17/2005 09:16:00 AM  
Blogger phillyjay said...

Personally I wouldn't mind if affirmative action was taken out.Either way myself and others will have to work hard to get anywhere.In some cases more harder then the majority population.The main thing I never liked about affirmative action is that no matter how it's used in a right or wrong way, most white people will feel it lets less intelligent, less worthy (lazy) people into a school or job that they don't deserve without actually knowing if race was involved or not.

The same people wouldn't have the same thoughts if it was a white or (in many cases)an asian indivisual.It also leads to assumptions like white people work hard for what they want while black latino and native americans are given a free ride and more money (sort of like sheldiz is saying), or a minority in a college/job is less than their white counterparts.But then again, you don't need affirmative action for people to have these thoughts about minorities to begin with.

I had an average GPA, and my SAT's sucked.I couldn't get into any bigtime college like Nova or Penn, way out of my leauge, espeically when it came to money.I had to settle for commmunity college (vast majority of my highschool graduating class went that way) and an art school that basically anyone can get into.No help because of my race there.Not all of us can get something like your flippino friend :)

10/17/2005 11:08:00 AM  
Blogger Jenn said...

Shelley, I recognize your frustration but are you sure that your friend was accepted based on her race? Do you know what it was about her application that got her in? Racial information is optional in most college essays, and it's just as likely that she as a Filipino woman was accepted based on other aspects than her race.

As far as grant money, that money exists to encourage people of particularly disadvantaged races to stay in school. Financial aid, in general exists as "need-based". I don't know the particulars of Villanova, but that's how it worked at Cornell. As far as grants and scholarships, sure that's award money that doesn't need to get paid back, but it's also dependent on some person writing a grant for it or some generous alumnus donating the money but stipulating that it is specifically for minorities, the underrepresented or disadvantaged.

If you don't like that there's no need-based grants or scholarships, then you could donate the money to start a fund for future generations and designate who the money goes to, or you could encourage a faculty member to start the ball-rolling on a "need-based" grant.

BTW, I never liked distinguishing between grants for minorities and "need-based" grants... It implies that minorities don't need the money.

10/17/2005 12:01:00 PM  
Blogger Sheldiz said...

a) yes, we've discussed it and she has made it known that she was a 'diversity candidate'.... her words, not mine. her grants from the school are 'diversity grants' -- she had to maintain a gpa above 2.0. That, to me, is bullshit. You can show up to class once a month, crap on your teachers' desk, and get a 2.0.

b) i used 'need-based' here to define a type of loan. its a word that has a singular definition and no room for interpretation when it comes to the way in which i used it. 'need-based' is a term used to describe financial aid grants/loans/scholarships that are dependent on your FAFSA EFC (Expected family contribution), which is a combination of your and your parents' most recent income statements, taxes paid, accrued interest on property and stock holdings, liquid assests, and the prior years' capital gains and/or losses. race has no bearing. any other type of financial aid is NOT need-based.

c) i know i'm not the only one who FAFSA thought could pay for school without any need-based aid. As a result, i had to rely on performance-based aid. Meaning, I worked my ass off in highschool assuming that I would be rewarded with scholarships in college. So it pisses me off that someone with an identical need of "none" according to FAFSA got a 50% ride for having significantly poorer grades and board scores.

d) do i think predominately white schools should do more to attract a diverse student population? yeah, absolutely. but i think admissions needs to be careful that they are not 'paying people to fill a quota'... thats just as disgraceful as not admitting minorities at all.

10/17/2005 02:11:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

Affirmative action is at best, a ridiculous public policy to get heated over. Jenn, I can't fathom why your study partner C got so bent out of shape when asked to clarify his views, but in general, he should have been able to clarify them without feeling attacked. It's tough to get more politically annoying than the person who thinks that other groups should not have opportunities, when he's unable to outline his reasoning.

That being said, Sheldiz, there's a big difference between the collegiate admissions process and the financial aid process. At Cornell, admissions reviewers overlooked applications, made their decisions based on their own criteria, and left the financial aid office the task of ensuring that everyone they selected had enough funding to attend school. It's important to keep those realms separate, in order to ensure that people are not turned away because of economic lack.

Sheldiz, your roommate's financial aid package may have had nothing to do with her successful admission to Villanova, or her race. Or maybe it did. Neither one of you can know for sure. Some federal and state monies exist to ensure that people from oppressed backgrounds can attend school. Either way, if your accident of birth leaves you ineligible for this money, blaming affirmative action as a public policy often subject to abuse does not compute, because affirmative action does not have to benefit White people. Sorry.

No one in America is entitled to a college education. Nobody. To say or imply that affirmative action is unfair in practice because it does not benefit you ignores the macro-level phenomena (institutional economic racism, good-'ol-boy networking, etc.) that spawned affirmative action in the first place. It's just foolish - affirmative action does not need to benefit White Americans in order to work.

I don't complain about Legacy students whose parents make $500 K a year. I don't try to define their scholastic hardship for them; whatever they have to do to maintain their grades is their business, I don't need to critique other people's hardship.

Philly, ending affirmative action because of how White people view affirmative action babies is not just cause. Many reasons exist for ending these public policy solutions, but the way White America views productive, professional Black America should not be one of them. Nothing about affirmative action encourages White people to feel it "lets less intelligent, less worthy (lazy) people into a school or job that they don't deserve". If anyone feels this way about affirmative action babies, it's their prejudice talking, nothing more.

In general, affirmative action should not force entitlement complexes to overpower reason. It's not important how anyone got into school; all we should care about is what people do when they get there, and what they do when they leave.

10/17/2005 05:02:00 PM  
Blogger Jenn said...

Sheldiz, first of all, I know what "need-based" is. I hate the terminology because it make sit sound like minorities don't need the money. I'd prefer if a different word were used, because I think it's obvious to everyone that hearing "need-based" being compared to monies for minorities implies that the money for minorities is not based on any particular need by the minority.

Secondly, neither you nor your Filipina friend know why you got into Villanova. For all you know, you got in based on your grades, and she got in based on her essay. She cannot call herself a "diverity candidate" (another term that seriously sucks) any more than you can. Not unless at Villanova you all are getting your application packages back with big red x's and a point tally.

And just to put it out there, most Asian Americans are not considered to be candidates for affirmative action -- in other words, the model minority myth assumes that Asians, like whites, are advantaged and we don't get any "points" for being people of colour. The likelihood that your friend was accepted based in part on her race/ethnicity are slim.

James hits the point square on the head when he says that affirmative action in admissions is not the same thing as financial aid. It's not as if minorities walk in the door and have a grant handed to them -- minorities still have to apply for every grant and every grant has strings attached. It may not sound like her requirements were too bad, but most scholarships and grants, irregardless of race have stipulations for the student set by whoever created the fund in the first place. Maintaining a 2.0 GPA may not sound too bad, but I think you tread the line of intellectual elitism to assume that everyone can just "crap on a desk" to get a 2.0 -- even those who worked their butts off for a good SAT score may not be gifted with intrinsic intelligence but have to work to keep up (incidentally, a merit-based system cannot distinguish between slackers who can crap on desks and earn a 2.0 and those who have to kill themselves for a passing grade).

Besides, every student has to maintain decent GPAs and take certain classes in all aspects of their academic career. At Cornell, the minority grants and scholarships required at least a 2.5GPA plus a bunch of required classes and events that had to be taken every semester -- again, I say, people are not just waltzing through higher education based on their skin colour. No matter how they get in and how they pay to stay in, they work just as hard as you to get their diploma.

c) i know i'm not the only one who FAFSA thought could pay for school without any need-based aid. As a result, i had to rely on performance-based aid. Meaning, I worked my ass off in highschool assuming that I would be rewarded with scholarships in college. So it pisses me off that someone with an identical need of "none" according to FAFSA got a 50% ride for having significantly poorer grades and board scores.

Sorry that happened to you, but I'll be honest, why did you just assume you would qualify for aid? If FAFSA decided you didn't fit a need-based system, then why are you advocating for more need-based money? You would be in the same boat regardless -- something about your parents' finances told financial aid that you would not qualify for money, so it's not as if getting rid of minority grants and scholarships would've given them money to pay for your education.

And maybe your friend didn't need the money but I'm unsure what your point is -- we don't know what your friend's academic, economic, etc background is nor should you feel jealous as if you're all in the same boat. You're not. Just because her family may have had money doesn't mean that there weren't other factors to consider in her admission and subsequent academic career. Either way, you seem to be assuming that you are just as, or somehow more, deserving than your friend to get a "free ride" -- as if your friend didn't work to get there either, and that once she got there, she shouldn't qualify for any money just because you feel shafted.

If this really bothers you, you can always advocate the starting of a grant or scholarship for people like you. Again, grants and scholarships are created by people who have money and who stipulate the criteria for awarding it to future students. I could start a grant for students who all have the initials J.F. Why not advocate starting a grant or scholarship for young, Caucasian women who don't qualify for need-based money rather than try to tear down grants that others have started because they felt the need to improve diversity at Villanova?

10/17/2005 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger Jenn said...

...oh, and just to put out there, I didn't qualify for need-based money either. I didn't assume I would. I don't begrudge anybody who got grants and scholarships because they qualified and I didn't. We all ended up with the same education, and even though I had more coming in doesn't mean I deserve just as much as those who didn't.

10/17/2005 06:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Kaede said...

Just to make a bit of an observation, based on something James said.

It's not important how anyone got into school; all we should care about is what people do when they get there, and what they do when they leave.

This is EXACTLY what people see when they advocate getting rid of affirmative action. Far too many people (in perhaps their experiences) have gotten in and done absolutely nothing during or after their academic careers, or so they believe. What about those who have been beneficiaries of AA in the past? How long has it been going on, and what are the statistics on who passed, and who subsequently went on to success or failure? Have any studies been done on this to clarify once and for all whether AA is working, even in its imperfect state? Has anyone bothered to find out any factors mitigating this, such as poor/no family support during/after uni, or discrimination during/after uni? I would really like to know all this before I can see myself realistically saying aye or nay for this. I would also not go as far as to say that it's a good idea, simply because anything that benefits a non-white, (or even a non-asian) person has to be good, imperfect practice or not.

10/17/2005 08:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Kaede said...

^ substitute merely for simply in the above final sentence and it reads more how I intended....

10/17/2005 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger Sheldiz said...

i knew i wouldn't get my point across correctly when i started this... my original point, which has been clouded considerably now, is in response to jenn's original post... people view affirmative action differently and often negatively because they have been impacted by it or seen it impact others in a negative way. i used an example that perhaps i didn't articulate thoroughly, but that's how i felt. i agree with everything said and with the reasons that affirmative action is a good idea and a beneficial program when implemented correctly. i'm merely saying that its easy to see why people may be wary of a system that is so often NOT implemented correctly.

10/17/2005 10:28:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

Sheldiz, I think your point was expressed clearly throughout this conversation. Your point, that affirmative action can be improperly executed, has been noted.

But I take issue with your example. In my opinion, the case of your Villanova roommate outlines exactly how affirmative action is supposed to work. Perhaps if you'd provide an example of 'properly executed affirmative action', we could compare and get a clearer picture of what you mean.

And Kaede, I don't think you understood my affirmative action concern in that quote. My point was that all the excess contention over how minorities get into school is a useless argument, especially when what matters is performance, not acceptance.

Too often, people who argue for an end to affirmative action promote a reduction in minority enrollment in higher education, as a facet of stymieing minority upward mobility; it's an attempt to keep minorities poor and oppressed. Your comment still focuses on the "should we allow minorities into higher education in large numbers?" question, and my point is that that very focus is not important.

10/18/2005 12:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dunno any of u too well, but i will say this about Affirmative Action.

Im a student who has a 3.4 GPA, >1200 SAT (old SAT), works full time, and has way too many extra curricular activies.

I pay all my tuition, books, everything b/c the state refuses to give me finanical aid b/c Im a white, male american.

My friend, whom is a really nice African American, holds a 2.0 GPA, no job, no activies, <1000 on SATs...and he gets a free ride through college.

And whats worse...even if I wanted to get into med school. I would only have a 9% chance to get in because Im a white, male. This is including the possiblity of a perfect score on the MCAT.

You tell me who is getting dicriminated...

10/18/2005 03:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


good job on the SATs!

10/18/2005 04:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, discriminated. I cant type today.

10/19/2005 01:05:00 AM  
Blogger phillyjay said...

Wow, lots of people are using "nice" (minorty) friends as an example here :)

10/19/2005 08:31:00 AM  
Blogger phillyjay said...

"And whats worse...even if I wanted to get into med school. I would only have a 9% chance to get in because Im a white, male. This is including the possiblity of a perfect score on the MCAT."

Ok so you're saying any black person who tries to get into med school has a way better chance then you?No matter what they do?

10/19/2005 08:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, yes, they do. I've done my homework on this, as this is what I want to do as a career.

They wont get in if they have <30 on the MCAT. However, if I got a 40 on my MCAT, and a miniority got a 35 with very similiar GPA as mine. Chances are, they will get in over me. Its the cold facts. So much so, that many people have said "dont even bother because you're not the right color."

10/19/2005 02:28:00 PM  
Blogger Karlos said...

dammit, there's an important issue here on which I feel the need to weigh in...

"irregardless" - I cringe every time I read it; just like when the president says "nuke - yoo - ler"

love you, jenn.

"Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so."

10/19/2005 04:45:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

"Actually, yes, they do. I've done my homework on this, as this is what I want to do as a career.

They wont get in if they have <30 on the MCAT. However, if I got a 40 on my MCAT, and a miniority got a 35 with very similiar GPA as mine. Chances are, they will get in over me. Its the cold facts. So much so, that many people have said "dont even bother because you're not the right color."
- Anonymous

Anonymous, as a African American male individual, I. Don't. Care.

I am so sick and tired of the "phantom Black slacker" excuse for ending affirmative action. Word to the wise for everyone here who's used this excuse: you only perpetuate Black intellectual inferiority myths in the present day. As racist as the conclusions of The Bell Curve, every random anecdote about the 'minority roommate with the lower high school g.p.a.' or the 'really nice African American friend with a score of 1000 on the SAT's' only serves to cement the logical fallacy that Black people are inherently stupider than other groups, especially Whites, and never deserve the upward mobility opportunity of higher education as long as a White student is willing and able to attend in his place.

I'm totally done with being nice towards that underhanded prejudice.

10/19/2005 06:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only will it happen to me, but it HAS happened to a friend of mine.

White, male. couldnt get in and he graduated from Coloumbia University with honors. yet, a minority from my university, which is not ivy league, gets accepted to all the med schools of her choice. And comparing her grades to his, his were overwhelmingly superior.

Sounds odd dont u think? Ur lucky he's not writing this comment. He would be on you like glue. Instead, he's off in Grenada for med school b/c he couldnt get in one in the USA

10/19/2005 09:08:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

Anonymous, that's good for your friend that he got into med school somewhere. But no, it doesn't sound odd, just selective.

You'd have to take into consideration all sorts of factors (transcripts, personal recommendations, interviews, different schools applied for, etc.) to discern why your White male friend did not enter into med school and your minority friend was successful.

To view race as the only factor here makes the discussion too simple, and presupposes that Black people are always unqualified before White applicants. That's neither factual nor sensible.

10/19/2005 09:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The world isn't black and white.

[the other] Anonymous is uses the term minority.

James, minority is not synonymous with black. Please stop acting like the words are interchangeable.

The same goes for white as non-minorities. As already mentioned, most Asians aren't considered for the minority groups in regard to affirmative action as well.

It's incredibly aggravating and belittling to the other members of the non/minorities groups (they don't matter?) since it's not in response to any specific generalizations made the person you're arguing with.

While Anonymous did mention a "really nice African American" friend, and another specific person as a white male, neither were blanket statements.

10/20/2005 12:59:00 AM  
Blogger James said...

Anonymous 2, thanks for stating the obvious.

Here's my problem: African Americans are the minority group affirmative action opponents reference when speaking about affirmative action's unfairness to White people. Not White women like Harriet Miers, not lawyers like Alberto Gonzales - Black people. The anti-affirmative action rhetoric obscures American diversity, not me. Until the undeserving affirmative action baby is not thought of as a Black person first (certainly not today's status quo) I find it difficult to blame Black people for speaking against this coded attack.

I don't suggest that non-Whites and non-Blacks don't matter - they matter very much, since they benefit from affirmative action as much as everyone else.

Still, this benefit does not come, in my opinion, with the commonplace and stereotypical derision White students and professionals express toward African American beneficiaries of affirmative action, so before I'm accused of over-generalizing and overlooking the incredible diversity of American minority groups, perhaps we should deal with the 'phantom Black slacker' phenomenon. Because no one's thinking of an Asian American or a member of the Sioux Nation when they think 'affirmative action hire'. They think of Black people.

All minorities don't share this blame equally.

10/20/2005 03:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Equal said...

All I know is that it sure will be hard if I ever have to go into surgery and I find out the surgeon is black.

Race or not it's not cool to mess with stuff like the practice of medicine just to make things fair.

How am I supposed to assume Im getting the best man for the job if some black guy who was inferior in skill and education got into med school over a superior student.


Yes I would feel exactly the same way if the race and roles were reversed. I want the best man for the job if Im getting my heart or lungs or other Very Necessary bodily organ operated upon. I think Anyone would. So that probably makes me predjudice against oh, i don't know, the less adept or those who are less qualified for a particular job?

Well at least they haven't made laws yet, well at least not too many, that call something like that hate.

Can you imagine getting your teeth pulled and the dentist is pulling the Wrong one and so you say, "Waith yuh poolien uh ong unn." and the dentist replies, "What are you trying to tell me I don't know how to do my job!? That's discrimination!"

10/20/2005 10:19:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

Equal, you are a racist.

Please end your bigoted rants here. They are not productive.

10/20/2005 10:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Equal said...

James you are a racist so please don't attempt to redirect you racism and hate towards others.

Well actually I guess you can all you want to, just dont expect that Im gonna fall for it especially since you know little to nothing about who I am and are basing your accusations simply on your emotional hatred of my race. It's funny that none of my black friends consider me racist nor do I consider them racist, and some of them even agree with my point of view on this subject in particular.

But go ahead and brand me with your ignorance, it's simply backing up the beliefs I've had for some time now, and that is that some black people are using their hatred and racism as a weapon against others - hence the invention of the concept of the so called "Race Card" or calling someone else a racist simply to hide your own.

It's people like you that are widening the gap that your own forefathers worked so hard to close.

10/20/2005 11:32:00 PM  
Blogger shannon said...

We simply can not close the gap by letting insults to our peoples go by, nor can we close this gap, by letting people stew in their ignorance. A problem I have with people who are against Affrimative Action is the fact that it's only a big deal when a black, hispanic or asian person doesn't have 'merit'. For example, I know white people without jobs who have 2.0 GPAs. Apparently this is not a big deal. But if I had a 2.0, apparently we need to bar all blacks. (I have a 3.2, hopefully high enough to avoid us all being thrown out)

Also, the thing is that totally incompetent people (who are white) are in high positions. White CEOs run their companies into the ground, white people like Mike Brown mess up their jobs- but somehow, it's worse if there's a black or asian or hispanic person? I simply don't understand why somehow competence only matters when someone is not white.

10/22/2005 07:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Equal said...

My reply is not my own and I like to think music is a wonderful way to send a message.

These are the words of a Black man.

It's only 6.1 MB and very worth it.

I am a DJ in real life and I like to spread joy through music. I also like to spread messages through the house and techno I play. Of course you may choose not to listen to it but that is simply a way to remain safe and uninformed. It's always so easy to argue with others when you remain uninformed and refuse to see another point of view.

This is a reply to both the recent threads I've posted in here as of late.

Enjoy (p.s. even without the message this is a pretty good song if you like house music)

10/25/2005 01:15:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home