College grads say "Hello, real world, do you have any jobs for me?"
Harry Hope
From The Greeley Tribune, 12/15/02:
http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=GR&Date=20021215&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=212150004&Ref=AR
Hello, real world, do you have any jobs for me?
Story by Jennifer Stanley
One person stood out Saturday among the sea of University of Northern
Colorado students dressed in blue robes.
From Chris Schneider’s graduation cap, the words "hire me" glared up
to the crowd gathered in Butler-Hancock Hall for the fall commencement
ceremony.
The message was a signal that amid a time of celebration, many
graduates are hunting for jobs even as companies use layoffs to cope
with a sluggish economy.
"I can’t find a job. One already said I’m overqualified. For some
jobs, there’s like 50,000 applicants," said Schneider, a computer
information system major.
He was among about 600 students who accepted their undergraduate
diplomas, leaving academia for the real world.
______________________________________________________
College grads come face to face with the harsh realities of the
disastrous Bush economy.
Harry
"The Bush administration is marinated in oil."
Ralph Nader
The Frog
and pounds of federal laws that attempt to micromanage, laws that force it
to hire the less qualified because of their affiliation to a favored and
protected political group (racial, gender, etc.) instead of who is best and
powerful labor unions that pay upwards of 90K a year for jobs that on the
open market would pay only half that.
And now we bitch about the job situation and why all the business is going
overseas......A look at the big picture will answer this question for you.
You can't have it both ways.....
The Frog
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:se5pvusjn3mbrj819...@4ax.com...
Rico
>Amazing what happens when you make business evil, hamstringing it with punds
>and pounds of federal laws that attempt to micromanage,
Actually more amazing how in 2 years the GOP can bust a bomming economy
into stagnation and possibly deflation. With no real signs of signicant
expansion on the horizon. This after the Bush tax cut and rebate.
Bert Hyman
news:uvs841r...@corp.supernews.com:
If the economy is so susceptible to manipulation or distortion by
government action, don't you think it would be a good idea to stop
all government involvement in the economy?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
Geo
aj cheese louise, here we go with the 'tax cut is responsible for all
the worlds ills' line again.
Rico
No, even Adam Smith in his book "The Wealth of Nations' warns that the
capitalist unrestrained will become a despot. The government must maintin
an involvement in the economy to keep the capitalist from running
roughshod over the rest of us.
Rico
No, I've listen to right wing commentators for over a decade tell me a tax
cut is the cure all for the economy. Those same commentators said the
Clinton tax increase in the early portion of his administration would sink
the economy - greatest peace time expansion in 50 years. So it has been
over a year now since the tax cut, when is the economy going to be cured
or even show real signs of being on its way?
The Frog
"Rico" <rico...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uvsjhsp...@corp.supernews.com...
They have certainly accomplished that ....
Frog
Bill Bonde
The economy was in such a mess from Clinton's eight years that we have
to slowly come out of this recession/slowdown.
Pop Kulcher
> and pounds of federal laws that attempt to micromanage,
other gosh darn laws that make it illegal to discriminate, expose
workers to deadly chemicals, and lie to investors. If only we let
BushCheney lay waste to those horrid laws and make this country what
it once was... a bastion of rich white men and poor losers.
> laws that force it to hire the less qualified because of their affiliation to
> a favored and protected political group (racial, gender, etc.) instead of who is best
taken into account, not given preference over more qualified
applicants. So you must believe that, by definition, blacks and women
are less qualified than white men.
Keynes
wrote:
>
>From The Greeley Tribune, 12/15/02:
>http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=GR&Date=20021215&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=212150004&Ref=AR
>
>Hello, real world, do you have any jobs for me?
>
>Story by Jennifer Stanley
Tell those crybaby kids to get off their asses and get an education!!!
Keynes
D.G. Porter
>
> Affirmative action, to be legal, only requires that protected class be
> taken into account, not given preference over more qualified
> applicants. So you must believe that, by definition, blacks and women
> are less qualified than white men.
After decades of believing in the good done by AA, I have reluctantly
reach the conlusion that it must be abolished. It is being used by its
beneficiaries in the same discriminatory ways that were used by whites
before its implementation.
It's not just race or gender -- it's also educational achievement. If
your job description does nto specify that you need a certain degree,
you will not be hireed or promoted. Management figures that if they can
get some yahoo with a HS diploma but no AA or BA, say, someone from
"welfare to work," they will do it -- that person is much easier to boss
around and intimidate. Educated people are more difficult to cow.
We once had a HR manager who stated openly is a public speech that while
she wa in charge ther would be no more hiring of white males for any
position at the university. That finally helped get her terminated, but
her policy still goes forward.
Ask yourself -- when you submit a resume to an institution, and you're
obviously more than qualified for the position, why is it the "Diversity
Officer" decides you are not qualified, instead of an evaluating board?
TCarr13397
>wrote:
>
>>
>>From The Greeley Tribune, 12/15/02:
>
>>http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=GR&Date=20021215&C
ategory=NEWS&ArtNo=212150004&Ref=AR
>>
>>Hello, real world, do you have any jobs for me?
>>
>>Story by Jennifer Stanley
>
Keynes Key...@earthlink.net
>Tell those crybaby kids to get off their asses and get an education!!!
>
What kind of job can you get with a major in Art History? Pour Coffee at the
local Starbucks?
T.Carr
>Keynes
>
>
>
>
>
>
TCarr13397
>>
>> Affirmative action, to be legal, only requires that protected class be
>> taken into account, not given preference over more qualified
>> applicants. So you must believe that, by definition, blacks and women
>> are less qualified than white men.
>
"D.G. Porter" dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught
>After decades of believing in the good done by AA, I have reluctantly
>reach the conlusion that it must be abolished. It is being used by its
>beneficiaries in the same discriminatory ways that were used by whites
>before its implementation.
>
>It's not just race or gender -- it's also educational achievement. If
>your job description does nto specify that you need a certain degree,
>you will not be hireed or promoted. Management figures that if they can
>get some yahoo with a HS diploma but no AA or BA, say, someone from
>"welfare to work," they will do it -- that person is much easier to boss
>around and intimidate. Educated people are more difficult to cow.
>
>We once had a HR manager who stated openly is a public speech that while
>she wa in charge ther would be no more hiring of white males for any
>position at the university. That finally helped get her terminated, but
>her policy still goes forward.
>
>Ask yourself -- when you submit a resume to an institution, and you're
>obviously more than qualified for the position, why is it the "Diversity
>Officer" decides you are not qualified, instead of an evaluating board?
A young man I know well applied last year to enter a major university, in a
major where the slots were limited and competition tough to get in. However it
was recognized as a top program.
His academic credentials put him in the upper 1/2 of the statistics of the
freshmen ADMITTED into the program.
To make a long story short..he was not accepted to that university.
The University is now in court defending its admission policies as "certain"
minority applicatants recieve the equivalent of a full GPA point increase as
part of the "process" (Asian applicants are classified as "white"..lol) The
SCOTUS will be ruling on this case this spring.
The university defends its position not to remedy past discrimatory practices
(which would be defensible imo) but rather to "promote diversity"
I'm hoping even a few of the "liberal" members of the SCOTUS finally see the
light on this one.
As far as the young man in question..whne he complained that it "wasnt
fair"..the only thing I could tell him that often life isnt fair. He still went
to college this fall, and will probably earn his degree, but this experience
will not be forgotten
T.Carr
Rico
Actually there are some restraints on them though business constantly tries
to weaken the restraints. And many times the public wants that. Look at the
last election, the public said in no uncertain terms, it doesn't want
factories to reduce pollution nor cars to have more emmmision controls.
Clean air just isn't important. Trees who needs them not the people who
elected a GOP white house and congress. This is what the public in the only
recent poll that counts has told the country. FOr now buiness is to have
minimal restraint because this is what joe white guy in the 'burbs wants.
Rico
Yeah a real mess, DOW at 10,000+, unemployment at the lowest levels since
WWII. What a mess, darn how those were the bad onld days. Why that idiot
even managed to do this in peacetime.
Rico
Well he is republican isn't he, your last statement is a given.
Bert Hyman
news:uvupb4h...@corp.supernews.com:
> Actually there are some restraints on them though business
> constantly tries to weaken the restraints. And many times the
> public wants that. Look at the last election, the public said in no
> uncertain terms, it doesn't want factories to reduce pollution nor
> cars to have more emmmision controls. Clean air just isn't
> important. Trees who needs them not the people who elected a GOP
> white house and congress. This is what the public in the only
> recent poll that counts has told the country. FOr now buiness is to
> have minimal restraint because this is what joe white guy in the
> 'burbs wants.
You seem to be looking only at what's been in the news lately.
Government intrusion in the economy is much more pervasive than
emmission controls on cars.
Simply try to open a small business in your town some time and see
how much interaction with the government is involved.
Home school your child? Alternative medical treatments? Pick an
issue; you'll find The State looking back at you.
Keynes
You have two kids and one piece of candy.
Guess what? There will be a loser. And the loser will bitch.
In the past, bitching never did any good. Tough shit, bro.
No blacks. No Jews. How dare you complain?
Who's listening anyway?
As long as there are two kids and one piece of candy,
the loser has a case. And there is no court or admissions
policy that will ever settle the matter.
Whites who cry reverse-discrimination
are really crying "discriminate the old way again".
Keynes
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote:
>
> >Pop Kulcher wrote:
> >> Affirmative action, to be legal, only requires that protected class be
> >> taken into account, not given preference over more qualified
> >> applicants. So you must believe that, by definition, blacks and women
> >> are less qualified than white men.
>
> the less qualified, to gain due consideration for positions.
>
> >After decades of believing in the good done by AA, I have reluctantly
> >reach the conlusion that it must be abolished. It is being used by its
> >beneficiaries in the same discriminatory ways that were used by whites
> >before its implementation.
>
>
> Say you're hiring, as an employer using public funds, and that the
> applicants from which you may choose happen to be:
>
> (A) a coddled selfish rich self-righteous brat (let's call him, say,
> "Herbert Walker Jr"), with a degree he got because his wealthy
> alumnus father bought it for him (with ill-gotten gains), and a work
> history of mismanagement of enterprises he caused to fail, who
> insists he should get the job because he'd be superior to anyone
> else, without justification, even making false claims about himself,
>
> and
>
> (B) a self-reliant self-made self-supervising poor honest go-getter,
> with a degree he got while supporting himself (and some younger
> siblings), and a work history of contribution and diligent effort, who
> suggests he should take on the position due to the potential he's
> exhibited to contribute value to the concern, freely admitting the
> challenges which have confronted him.
>
> AA laws merely require that you not reject applicant (B) because
> his skin is black, to select applicant (A) because his skin is white.
That's not how it's used.
We had an HR director who made a foolish speech about how she, a Latina,
was never going to hire another white male. This speeh was the last
straw after years of her abusing her power and discriminating against
anyone who wasn't Latino and she was finally fired.
Now Administration is loaded with gays, and they protect their own like
Mafiosi. Ask me sometimes about the notorious "Gourdine case" -- where
the guy who ran Media Sevices was dying of AIDS and doing everything he
could to infect as many people as possible. Complaints to HTR were
ginored -- in fact, afte he showed up to work naked one day, THEN
something was done, and he died soon after that -- and when two guys who
he had been harrassing for months PRIVATELY toasted his death at an
off-hours event, letters of reprimand were put in thier files. It took
a nasty lawsuit against Administreation to reverse that and expose the
whole sordid affair.
It is also common policy to discriminate against anyone with a degree
when one is not specifically needed for the job.
And tell me why, with my 8-page data-crammed resume, I never get past
the "Diversity officer" because I check "white" on the form.
Did you see "60 Minutes" Sunday?
Rico
Don't you think though that we shoudl first start from a level playing
field before we hold those legally disadvantage to the same standard as
the priviladged class. IN the South for example Non-white 40 years or older
were under law sent to inferior schools. This naturally had a negative
impact on their ability to achive. Sure some like Collin Powell managed to
rise above the handicap imposed by the legal system (oops wait he did
recieve affrimative action, well anyway you get the idea). Now this reduced
chance for achievement would of course also impact their children. A
college educated family for example can as a rule provide a more
stimulating home for a child then one of lesser educated parents (again
there are indeed exceptions, but money does and education do have their
advantages).
So while I agree affirmative action is indeed not fair, do you not think
before we completely do away with it as a factor we could at least wait
until those who have been legally discriminated against in terms of
oportunity have reached retirement age? Say another 20 years or so?
D.G. Porter
Did you see "60 Minutes" on Sunday? They profiled U of M in Ann Arbor.
There's a points system. Writing an outstanding essay gets you 1
point. being an athlete gets you 12 points. (Being a jock brings in
alumni $$ so to hell with your brain, be a jock.) Being "a minority"
gets you TWENTY (20) points.
I can tell you for a fact that here the incoming of any group Freshman
can't write an essay or do basic math (I don't mean algebra).
On "60 Minutes" some silly black dude who shaves his head (that's
grounds enough to deem him silly) said he wouldn't have been able to get
into U of M without AA because of his GPA. Well, fuck that, dude! Go
to a community colege for a year or 2 until you're ready to "DO COLLEGE"
and not "advanced high school"!
It's been about 40 damn years we've had AA -- two generations! It's
about time to end it.
D.G. Porter
It's been in effect for almost 40 (FORTY) years. TWO GENERATIONS.
That's enough time for young people to get into good universities.
And I'm sick and tired of being passed over by "Diversity officers" who
don't even look at your resume.
If you can't cut it and get into U of M on your SAT, go to a community
college for a couple of years. You probably need it.
D.G. Porter
I am no Ralph Baakke. He was less-qualified than minority applicants
getting admitted. If anything I am over-qualified. And I don't get
beyond the "Diversity officer."
Did you see "60 Minutes"? Get this: One point towards admission for
writing an "oustanding essay" -- TWELVE points for being a jock -- and
TWENTY points for being a "minority." And there was one academic
standard for whites and one (much lower) for eveyone else.
I call this "craven."
Geo
You don't think the internet boom had anything to do with the overvalued
stockmarket and the number of people working? Clinton benefited from
being in the right place at the right time with that boom. No President
was going to stop it from collapsing, which started happening at the end
of his term.
TCarr13397
"D.G. Porter" dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught
>Did you see "60 Minutes" on Sunday? They profiled U of M in Ann Arbor.
>There's a points system. Writing an outstanding essay gets you 1
>point. being an athlete gets you 12 points. (Being a jock brings in
>alumni $$ so to hell with your brain, be a jock.) Being "a minority"
>gets you TWENTY (20) points.
Living in Michigan I'm well aware of the AA program at U-M. The example I
cited was to that University. He was told the average Freshman had a GPA of 3.8
and a ACT of 27. (for the program he wanted..not "general studies")His GPA vas
slightly over 3.8 and his ACT was a 29. He was not accepted.
>
>I can tell you for a fact that here the incoming of any group Freshman
>can't write an essay or do basic math (I don't mean algebra).
The top level universities can pretty well pick and choose who to admit.
there is no lack of qualified candidates. As far as k-12 education..lets save
that for another thread
>
>On "60 Minutes" some silly black dude who shaves his head (that's
>grounds enough to deem him silly) said he wouldn't have been able to get
>into U of M without AA because of his GPA. Well, fuck that, dude! Go
>to a community colege for a year or 2 until you're ready to "DO COLLEGE"
>and not "advanced high school"!
Dont you realize how rascist and insensitive that sounds? Almost a right
winger <sarcasm intended> attitude
>
>It's been about 40 damn years we've had AA -- two generations! It's
>about time to end it.
>
I have no problem with AA to remedy specific instances of past discriminatory
practice. However. U-M advances it because of "diversity", not to remedy any
societal wrongs
Hopefully even the libs on the SCOTUS will slap this down
T.Carr
Bill Bonde
A stock bubble that when it inevitably burst caused those individuals
with high debt relative to their new worth to have troubles. Businesses
which had high debt were also put in positions where many went bankrupt.
It is this continued high debt that is holding back economic recovery.
Corruption in the boardrooms of some high flying companies on Clinton's
watch caused problems after Bush took over as well. Instead of blaming
this on Clinton, who was president when it happened, you blame it on
Bush who was president when it became public.
--
"You bastards, why are you torturing me like this? Why!?"
Sam Raimi's "The Evil Dead"
TCarr13397
Keynes Key...@earthlink.net
>You have two kids and one piece of candy.
>Guess what? There will be a loser. And the loser will bitch.
Not if the decision on who to give the candy to was fair.
>In the past, bitching never did any good. Tough shit, bro.
>No blacks. No Jews. How dare you complain?
>Who's listening anyway?
In the "past" the Jews, Irish, Germans, Poles, etc.. all came and were
initially treated badly. They didnt need AA did they?
>
>As long as there are two kids and one piece of candy,
>the loser has a case. And there is no court or admissions
>policy that will ever settle the matter.
How long has it been since you had a kid apply to college "keynes"?
Especially to a university that gives a 20 point "boost" (out of a 140 point
system) for simply being born the "right" color or being a member of the
"right" ethnic group
>
>Whites who cry reverse-discrimination
>are really crying "discriminate the old way again".
Try educating yourself to the current system before spouting your
ideology..for a change
T.Carr
>
>Keynes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
TCarr13397
"D.G. Porter" dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught
>I am no Ralph Baakke. He was less-qualified than minority applicants
>getting admitted. If anything I am over-qualified. And I don't get
>beyond the "Diversity officer."
>
>Did you see "60 Minutes"? Get this: One point towards admission for
>writing an "oustanding essay" -- TWELVE points for being a jock -- and
>TWENTY points for being a "minority." And there was one academic
>standard for whites and one (much lower) for eveyone else.
>
>I call this "craven."
>
Dont confuse "keynes" with evidence thats contrary to his ideology. After all
its time the white folks (except that the U-M lumps Asians in with whites) got
whats coming to them. Dont you know..the civil rights movement wasnt about
equal rights..it was about "diversity"
T.Carr
Keynes
When the universities are all lilly white again,
then the crackers can fight each other for slots.
Freedom for the 87%. White power!
Keynes
Keynes
I've been discriminated against since I turned 40.
I'm too "overqualified" for anything but being a supermarket bagboy
or a burger flipper, and probably even for that.
Look, there are too many people and not enough slots.
There will never be equity. Never. So how are we going
to spread the pains and gains? Affirmative action is the
only way out of our deep racial dilemna. Yes, it hurts.
But without it, it's gonna hurt a whole lot worse.
I am not a racist or a sexist, but I get those same feelings
when the occasion arises, and fight them off. There is
absolutely no doubt that racism is so deep in all of us
that we can't even see it anymore. It is no improvement
to put nice Orwellian names on our biases.
Admission and hiring policies are arbitrary and often
stupid and unfair. Eliminating AA is not going to change that.
There will always be the odd guy out, fair or not.
Keynes
Kevin...@corecom.net
<dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote:
>
>I am no Ralph Baakke. He was less-qualified than minority applicants
>getting admitted. If anything I am over-qualified. And I don't get
>beyond the "Diversity officer."
>
>Did you see "60 Minutes"? Get this: One point towards admission for
>writing an "oustanding essay" -- TWELVE points for being a jock -- and
>TWENTY points for being a "minority." And there was one academic
>standard for whites and one (much lower) for eveyone else.
>
>I call this "craven."
You also get 100 points if you can prove you are at least as stupid as
Keynes.
Nobody EVER is that dumb...
Kevin...@corecom.net
> What kind of job can you get with a major in Art History? Pour Coffee at the
>local Starbucks?
>
> T.Carr
>
What kind of college education can you get after attending a failed
liberal-teachers-union-controlled school?
Not much.
Kevin...@corecom.net
> A young man I know well applied last year to enter a major university, in a
>major where the slots were limited and competition tough to get in. However it
>was recognized as a top program.
<snip>
> I'm hoping even a few of the "liberal" members of the SCOTUS finally see the
>light on this one.
FYI the SCOTUS did rule on this some time ago. I recently read about
how they decided that for a college to consider race is OK but not
when it excludes qualified white applicants. I do not remember the
case. The book was First Among Equals, which explains how and why the
SCOTUS rules how it does.
I wouldn't recommend any liberals read it though. You will surely be
offended by not only the author, but by the explanation of why Gore's
attempt to subvert the law by buying the Florida SC was overturned.
D.G. Porter
Keynes on a bad day leaves you in the dumpster, Nazi-boy.
D.G. Porter
Except WHO DO THEY HIRE? Someone of their own.
Are the hirees a good as I am? Not a lot of the time.
So why do the less-qualified get hired? FOR *LOOKS*.
That's stupid.
Hey, it isn't like I barely make "qualification." I've been ionvited
and PAID to lectutre and teach as a guest at places like Yale,
Cleveland's Severance Hall, and UC Davis, and I've filled in for
professors at a moment's notice. I've tutored students and gotten them
from a D in theory to a B. It isn't that I don't know my subject matter
ass-backwards, sideways and upside-down. It's that I'm a white male
over 40. And the people who hire are non-white and they are determined
to get some kind of "revenge" for past discrimination.
I thought we were supposed to END discrimination, not just replace the
players.
That's just STUPID.
There is no excuse for passing over a top candidate because of his age,
race or gender. What is going on is the same shit that happened when
"white males only need apply" was going on.
My wife is denied a job reclassification simply because she has a
college degreee. Administration -- a bunch of fuckers -- want to fill
the open positions with people with no more than a HSD because they
don't have to pay them as much.
And I've seen some of the results on kids who are let in who just are
not ready for a university. It's disgusting and ridiculous.
That clown from U of M on "60 Minutes" -- what he was really saying is
"We want it to 'look' a certain way."
Well, I'm fukkin' tired of it and I'm calling it for what it has become.
D.G. Porter
Hey, you and I know the guys who do that only shave their heads because
some jockster does it and they wanna look "cool" like the althlete-guy.
Don't get me started on white punks with piercings. Or clowns with
their pants down their ass so far they could fart and lose their pants
completely.
Once when I was working Admissions and Records I went to the Men's room
to wash up. Some Vietnamese kid (we had a big influx that year) was
behind me dong something in front of the mirror. I sortof looked back
out of the corner of my eye. He was adjusting his shirttails being
"just out" of his pants and hopping around, assuming various poses in
front of the mirror. He did this for several minutes -- he was still
doing it when I left.
Silly behavior -- piercings, shaved heads, GOLD CHAINS, saggy pants,
posing -- it's all ridiculous bullshit.
> >>It's been about 40 damn years we've had AA -- two generations! It's
> >>about time to end it.
> >>
> >
> > I have no problem with AA to remedy specific instances of past discriminatory
> >practice. However. U-M advances it because of "diversity", not to remedy any
> >societal wrongs
Yeah -- and being a black guy with a shaved head and earrings is TWENTY
TIMES more desirable that being able to write an "Outstanding Essay"
just on the face of it. No wonder "Johnny can't think."
When I substituted for a Music Appreciation (non-major) class, there was
this black *FOOL* siting inthe back mouthing around and making nois and
disrupting the class for everyone around him because he didn't like the
music. He finally got up and left.
Or how about the chick they had hired for the Info Booth at the front of
the campus -- you drive up to her and she comes forward, surly attitude,
and sez "Hep you?"
I wouldn't tolerate that 'tude from an employee at a state institution
for 5 minutes. And IIRC neither did some tenured prof who she handed
that out to.
> > Hopefully even the libs on the SCOTUS will slap this down
> >
> > T.Carr
>
> When the universities are all lilly white again,
> then the crackers can fight each other for slots.
> Freedom for the 87%. White power!
Stop being as silly as the guy with the piercings and shaved heads.
OK dude, it's "resumes at 10 paces"!
D.G. Porter
Well so is Ives's music, so is Zappa's -- that doesn't justify being
stupid.
ONE POINT for writing an "Outstanding Essay" -- TWENTY POINTS for being
"a minority." SHIT! A jockster only gets TWELVE points and he's
probably going to bring in a fat donation from some old fart who never
made the team but made a million!
And ONE STANDARD for whites -- HIGH -- and ANOTHER for "minorities" --
LOW.
Hey, if you can't cut it, you don't belong in college until maybe your
Junior year. Go to a community college and work up your skills. It's
cheap enough!
I don't know why the fuck it is so goddamned important to some people
that they have to spend ALL FOUR YEARS at some "name" when they're more
likely to get in as a transfer student after honing their skill at a
more humble institution.
And I'm sick and tired of seeing how UNQUALIFIED students are allowed in
at the expense of QUALIFIED students because of "how it will look."
Jeez, that's something my mom would say about my friend's (best damned
church organist in the area) jalopy truck parked on the street in front
of out house! "How will it look? What will people day??"
D.G. Porter
What really pissed me off is that the guy with the silly shaved head
just "got" 20 points, and to be on his level playing field I'd have to
submit TWENTY "outstanding essays" and have each one accepted!
FWIW that kid said that if it hadn't been for those 20 points he
wouldn't be there. So some kid who has a lot of skills and potential
lost out to a herd-follower. THIS is an improvement???
Shit, that's like Smirko getting into Yale because granddaddy and daddy
did. Smikie-boy got in and a more-qualified kid didn't. Real cool,
status-quoers.
> >Whites who cry reverse-discrimination
> >are really crying "discriminate the old way again".
>
> Try educating yourself to the current system before spouting your
> ideology..for a change
Since my wife has been a major figure ion her department for over 20
years -- including the registration process -- I've seen this up close,
and it stinks. Merit is not longer important -- "look" is.
Here's another comparison. This blind guy we know -- the whiner. He
used to be partially sighted and gradually went fully blind in his 40s.
This other guy, a student, has been blind since eye cancer at age 7 or
so. The first guy chews with his mouth open, "finger-foods" everything
(touchy-feely the vegetables in sauce and meat slices) and spills sauce
and stuff on the table and his fat stomach because he can't bend over
far enough to reach his food. The second guy doesn't eat like that! He
can eat like a normal guy with polite table manners and a knife and
fork. And the first guy lost his sight a lot later on than the 2nd guy
did, so it's not like he never learned. But you criticize the 1st guy's
"manners" and it's: "FINE! FINE! YOU'RE JUST ON ME BECAUSE I'M BLIND!
FUCK YOU!"
Sometimes I think these guys who defend AA so vociferously are like the
first guy. They're all wound up in "phlegm-bag of self" and "the world
is still persecuting poor me!" Boo fucking hoo. Blind guy No. 2 is
embarrassed by that kind of behavior. He doesn't spill food all over
the place and himself and feel everything with his fingers!
TCarr13397
Keynes Key...@earthlink.net
>When the universities are all lilly white again,
>then the crackers can fight each other for slots.
>Freedom for the 87%. White power!
When "keynes" pulls his head out of his ass and looks at the real world
instead of dogma and ideology, he might be able to use his last lifeline and
buy a clue
There are many ways a University can promote "diversity" without racial
discrinination. The plaintiffs in the U-M case identified a easy one.
Nice to see you on the side of quotas and discrimination.
T.Carr
>
>Keynes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
TCarr13397
"D.G. Porter" dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught
>Hey, you and I know the guys who do that only shave their heads because
>some jockster does it and they wanna look "cool" like the althlete-guy.
>
>Don't get me started on white punks with piercings. Or clowns with
>their pants down their ass so far they could fart and lose their pants
>completely.
Each generation has its "way" to dress and act. Do you recall your parents
reaction to "those damn longhairs"
Hel we had to listen the Hendrix, joplin, etc.. away from home
>
>Once when I was working Admissions and Records I went to the Men's room
>to wash up. Some Vietnamese kid (we had a big influx that year) was
>behind me dong something in front of the mirror. I sortof looked back
>out of the corner of my eye. He was adjusting his shirttails being
>"just out" of his pants and hopping around, assuming various poses in
>front of the mirror. He did this for several minutes -- he was still
>doing it when I left.
>
>Silly behavior -- piercings, shaved heads, GOLD CHAINS, saggy pants,
>posing -- it's all ridiculous bullshit.
Easy DG.. Did you generation have crew cuts like your parents wanted?
>
>> >>It's been about 40 damn years we've had AA -- two generations! It's
>> >>about time to end it.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I have no problem with AA to remedy specific instances of past
>discriminatory
>> >practice. However. U-M advances it because of "diversity", not to remedy
>any
>> >societal wrongs
>
>Yeah -- and being a black guy with a shaved head and earrings is TWENTY
>TIMES more desirable that being able to write an "Outstanding Essay"
>just on the face of it. No wonder "Johnny can't think."
Its another example of good intentions gown wrong. the plaintiffs in the case
identified a easy, non racial discriminatory way to increase "diversity". But
the university wont admit discrimination is wrong. Hell even the states major
left of center paper supports the U-M position
>
>When I substituted for a Music Appreciation (non-major) class, there was
>this black *FOOL* siting inthe back mouthing around and making nois and
>disrupting the class for everyone around him because he didn't like the
>music. He finally got up and left.
>Or how about the chick they had hired for the Info Booth at the front of
>the campus -- you drive up to her and she comes forward, surly attitude,
>and sez "Hep you?"
>I wouldn't tolerate that 'tude from an employee at a state institution
>for 5 minutes. And IIRC neither did some tenured prof who she handed
>that out to.
Dont judge the generation by the exceptions. Most of the kids 18-22 seem to
be ok..except for the fashion statements <g>
>
>> > Hopefully even the libs on the SCOTUS will slap this down
>> >
>> > T.Carr
>>
>> When the universities are all lilly white again,
>> then the crackers can fight each other for slots.
>> Freedom for the 87%. White power!
>
>Stop being as silly as the guy with the piercings and shaved heads.
>OK dude, it's "resumes at 10 paces"!
"Keynes" is a bit predictable.. If I'm against it..he's for it. Even if you
and I disagree 90% of the time once in a while a topic comes up where we have
common beliefs
T.Carr
ha
wrote:
>ha wrote:
Abuse of a law isn't a problem with that law per se.
When the abuse of the law begins to constitute more than a
miniscule fraction of the abuse the law addresses, let me know.
TCarr13397
"D.G. Porter" dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught
>What really pissed me off is that the guy with the silly shaved head
>just "got" 20 points, and to be on his level playing field I'd have to
>submit TWENTY "outstanding essays" and have each one accepted!
The U-M application allows for only one essay..you lose <g>
I was more than tempted to advise the young man to send in another
application with a different "race" and see what would happen.
>
>FWIW that kid said that if it hadn't been for those 20 points he
>wouldn't be there. So some kid who has a lot of skills and potential
>lost out to a herd-follower. THIS is an improvement???
According to the University, "diversity" is more important. According to the
U-M a education consists of socialization, preparing people to work in
"diverse"enviroments in addition to "academics"
You know..you have to break eggs to make a omlet
>
>Shit, that's like Smirko getting into Yale because granddaddy and daddy
>did. Smikie-boy got in and a more-qualified kid didn't. Real cool,
>status-quoers.
The U-M system gave a few points to "legacy" students..may 1/5 as the number
of points for being the "right" race/ethnic group
>
>
>> >Whites who cry reverse-discrimination
>> >are really crying "discriminate the old way again".
>>
>> Try educating yourself to the current system before spouting your
>> ideology..for a change
>
>Since my wife has been a major figure ion her department for over 20
>years -- including the registration process -- I've seen this up close,
>and it stinks. Merit is not longer important -- "look" is.
Merit is still considered at the U-M. When a major university has 4- 7x the
applicants for every available slot the competition gets tough. I have no
problem with that.
maybe the "fair" way would be to establish minimun standards for every major
and award the slots based on a lottery?
>
>Here's another comparison. This blind guy we know -- the whiner. He
>used to be partially sighted and gradually went fully blind in his 40s.
>This other guy, a student, has been blind since eye cancer at age 7 or
>so. The first guy chews with his mouth open, "finger-foods" everything
>(touchy-feely the vegetables in sauce and meat slices) and spills sauce
>and stuff on the table and his fat stomach because he can't bend over
>far enough to reach his food. The second guy doesn't eat like that! He
>can eat like a normal guy with polite table manners and a knife and
>fork. And the first guy lost his sight a lot later on than the 2nd guy
>did, so it's not like he never learned. But you criticize the 1st guy's
>"manners" and it's: "FINE! FINE! YOU'RE JUST ON ME BECAUSE I'M BLIND!
>FUCK YOU!"
>
>Sometimes I think these guys who defend AA so vociferously are like the
>first guy. They're all wound up in "phlegm-bag of self" and "the world
>is still persecuting poor me!" Boo fucking hoo. Blind guy No. 2 is
>embarrassed by that kind of behavior. He doesn't spill food all over
>the place and himself and feel everything with his fingers!
I think that AA had a needed purpose for a while. No doubt that past
discrimination existed and AA provided a "bridge" strategy to remedy past
wrongs.
But the U-M isnt arguing the need for AA based on past discriminatory
practice, but rather "diversity"
At that point it became clear that it was time for AA to go from that
universtiy
T.Carr
TCarr13397
><dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught> wrote:
>>
>>I am no Ralph Baakke. He was less-qualified than minority applicants
>>getting admitted. If anything I am over-qualified. And I don't get
>>beyond the "Diversity officer."
>>
>>Did you see "60 Minutes"? Get this: One point towards admission for
>>writing an "oustanding essay" -- TWELVE points for being a jock -- and
>>TWENTY points for being a "minority." And there was one academic
>>standard for whites and one (much lower) for eveyone else.
>>
>>I call this "craven."
>
Kevin...@CoreCom.net
>You also get 100 points if you can prove you are at least as stupid as
>Keynes.
>
>Nobody EVER is that dumb...
I disagree with "keynes" probably over 90% of the time
One thing I would not accuse him of being is dumb/stupid
Try to stay on topic
T.Carr
TCarr13397
Keynes Key...@earthlink.net
>I've been discriminated against since I turned 40.
>I'm too "overqualified" for anything but being a supermarket bagboy
>or a burger flipper, and probably even for that.
I can accept limited discriminatory practice to correct past wrongs. The case
in point is not to address that issue
>
>Look, there are too many people and not enough slots.
>There will never be equity. Never. So how are we going
>to spread the pains and gains?
How about a fair method of rationing University openings?
Affirmative action is the
>only way out of our deep racial dilemna. Yes, it hurts.
>But without it, it's gonna hurt a whole lot worse.
We have had AA for over 30 years? How much longer are the children need to
suffer for the real and imagined sins of the parents
Again, in the U-M case AA is being used to "promote diversity", not to remedy
past wrongs
>
>I am not a racist or a sexist, but I get those same feelings
>when the occasion arises, and fight them off. There is
>absolutely no doubt that racism is so deep in all of us
>that we can't even see it anymore.
Speak for yourself..and only yourself
It is no improvement
>to put nice Orwellian names on our biases.
>
>Admission and hiring policies are arbitrary and often
>stupid and unfair. Eliminating AA is not going to change that.
IF the problem does not exist (by the university's own admission) then why
the solution?
The plaintiffs provided a easy answer to the university to provide
"diverstiy" without racial discrimination..and the university rejected it.
>There will always be the odd guy out, fair or not.
When the status quo is wrong, it needs to be changed. The University could
easily meet its "diversity" goals by factoring in socio-economic status..not
race.
T.Carr
>
>Keynes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
D.G. Porter
>
> >On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:52:18 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>From The Greeley Tribune, 12/15/02:
> >
> >>http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=GR&Date=20021215&C
> ategory=NEWS&ArtNo=212150004&Ref=AR
> >>
> >>Hello, real world, do you have any jobs for me?
> >>
> >>Story by Jennifer Stanley
> >
>
> Keynes Key...@earthlink.net
>
> >Tell those crybaby kids to get off their asses and get an education!!!
> >
>
> What kind of job can you get with a major in Art History? Pour Coffee at the
> local Starbucks?
Poor ignorant Carr -- he doesn't get it.
You learn a lot in any kind of research-oriented major -- how to look
for info -- how to find it -- how to digest it -- how to classify it --
how to extrapolate from it, etc.
What you really need in one of these majors is MAJOR WRITING SKILLS.
Then you can fall into any good secretarial white-collar job.
Keynes
I strive for personal honesty. Search your heart.
It's no sin to overcome your lower impulses.
It's a sin to think you don't have any.
> It is no improvement
>>to put nice Orwellian names on our biases.
>>
>>Admission and hiring policies are arbitrary and often
>>stupid and unfair. Eliminating AA is not going to change that.
>
> IF the problem does not exist (by the university's own admission) then why
>the solution?
>
This is a semantic quibble.
> The plaintiffs provided a easy answer to the university to provide
>"diverstiy" without racial discrimination..and the university rejected it.
>
What was their remedy?
>>There will always be the odd guy out, fair or not.
>
> When the status quo is wrong, it needs to be changed. The University could
>easily meet its "diversity" goals by factoring in socio-economic status..not
>race.
>
> T.Carr
Listen to yourself taking here.
"When the status quo is wrong, it needs to be changed."
Of course. That's how we got AA in the first place.
More than 160 years late too.
" The University could easily meet its "diversity" goals by factoring
in socio-economic status..not race."
Without race, where is the diversity?
Now are you implying that minorities (probably excepting asians)
are STUPID? (Good thing you're not a racist.)
Or are you saying that smart minorities who are POOR
ought to be let in before dumb minorities who are rich (or poor)?
Isn't that what is being done? Do you imagine a U
will choose a dumb minority over a smart one?
(Except for in the athletic programs -- which are an
abomination and should be completely eliminated!
They degrade the school and are nothing but a
subsidy to professional sports.)
Should poor applicants get priority over rich ones?
That will never happen, even if it might be a good thing.
And *it* would be unfair too.
However you slice the pizza, there will never be enough to
go around. You know that. There is no completely fair way
of doing it. It must be unfair, even without AA.
Now as to race, the only way to deal with race is to deal with race.
There is no substitute for AA. Okay, you are tired of it.
Everybody is tired of it. Can you say that racial equality of
education has already been met and nothing more needs
to be done?
Yeah there are horror stories about admissions.
Academics and bureaucrats are paid to screw things up.
They screwed things up before AA, and they continue
to screw things up.
I'm speaking as one who has been discriminated against
on the basis of age - illegal maybe but universal. Not fair,
but tough shit. Discrimination hits pretty near everybody,
young and old, black and white, rich and poor. That's life.
There is no way to give everybody perfect justice.
Eliminating AA will only bring in a new group of bitchers
about how damn unfair the system is, and it will do
nothing about our pervasive race problems.
There are black racists and white racists.
I'll bet that damn near no one is free from racial bias,
any more than they are free of ethnic bias, gender bias,
regional bias, economic bias, or any other of our
instinctive xenophobias and our inate self-righteousness.
Keynes
TCarr13397
Keynes Key...@earthlink.net
>I strive for personal honesty. Search your heart.
>It's no sin to overcome your lower impulses.
>It's a sin to think you don't have any.
My personal bias/prejudice is not race related. Socio-economic backround is
where I struggle .
You have your struggles, I have mine
Now as I was saying..speak only for yourself when pontificating about racism
>
>> It is no improvement
>>>to put nice Orwellian names on our biases.
>>>
>>>Admission and hiring policies are arbitrary and often
>>>stupid and unfair. Eliminating AA is not going to change that.
>>
>> IF the problem does not exist (by the university's own admission) then why
>>the solution?
>>
>
>This is a semantic quibble.
Your dodge is duly noted. Do you have anything of substance to contribute to
the discussion?
What is the compelling reason for supporting state sponsored racial
discrimination?
>
>
>> The plaintiffs provided a easy answer to the university to provide
>>"diverstiy" without racial discrimination..and the university rejected it.
>>
>
>What was their remedy?
Factor in socio-economic backround. This would be race/gender neutral but
would allow the universities to meet "diversity" goals.
You dont live that far from Michigan..I'm suprised this story hasnt been
covered in your state
>
>>>There will always be the odd guy out, fair or not.
>>
>> When the status quo is wrong, it needs to be changed. The University could
>>easily meet its "diversity" goals by factoring in socio-economic status..not
>>race.
>>
>> T.Carr
>
>Listen to yourself taking here.
>
>"When the status quo is wrong, it needs to be changed."
>
>Of course. That's how we got AA in the first place.
>More than 160 years late too.
We have had it for over 40 years. How long do we ned it "keynes"? The
University admits it isnt to remedy past discrimination
As far as 160 years too late..I wasnt part of that. However before you get
too sanctimonious are you sure your positions will be viewed favorably in
another 200 years?
>
>" The University could easily meet its "diversity" goals by factoring
>in socio-economic status..not race."
>
>Without race, where is the diversity?
The diversity of backround, experience and of ideas.
Is the educational experience improved(ie diversity) when you have 2 students
from the same exclusive prep HS..one of which is black and the other white?
So again "keynes:" ..how long do the children have to pay for the real and
imagined sins of the parents? AA has already been in effect for 2 generations.
>
>Now are you implying that minorities (probably excepting asians)
>are STUPID? (Good thing you're not a racist.)
Good thing you enjoy building strawmen. Why is it you start projecting when
you start defending the indefensible?
AA was initiated to remedy past discrimination. The U-M has admitted that its
practice is not to acomplish that goal
Yet you are defending state sponsored and supported discrimination for the
sole purpose of a politically correct theory.
Are you implying that minorities are "too stupid" to get into Universties
without a help from the white liberal establishment?
>
>Or are you saying that smart minorities who are POOR
>ought to be let in before dumb minorities who are rich (or poor)?
>Isn't that what is being done? Do you imagine a U
>will choose a dumb minority over a smart one?
What I am "saying" is that in the absence of past discrimination at a
particular institution, race should not be a factor..period.
Look at the message such a practice sends. Your race/ethnicity is more
important that your efforts and acomplishments. Is that what the ideals of this
country stand for in your view?
. The U-M claims to want "diversity" yet equates asians with whites, (and
probably others as well) How does that support the PC theory du jour of
"diversity"
In the U-M case I'm sure each and every successfully admitted applicant met
the minimum criteria to be "considered". However when "certain" applicants are
given the equivalent of a full GPA point increase they go from "considered" to
"accepted" Others that would have been ranked higher without racial
considerations were rejected
Now if the university wants a race neutral method of achieving "diversity"
all they have to do is place consideration on socio-economic backround. It will
have the effect of increasing "diversity" in a race neutral manner, and not
create the backlash the current policy does
How many people are going to really be upset about giving a kid from a poorer
backround a break?
>(Except for in the athletic programs -- which are an
>abomination and should be completely eliminated!
>They degrade the school and are nothing but a
>subsidy to professional sports.)
That is a seperate topic, but be careful what you wish for. Take a look at
the composition of the sports with the largest number of "scholarships" and the
composition of those teams by race / ethnicity (ie football, track,etc...)
Some universities still insist that their athletes actually study and go to
class. However seldom are those programs "ranked". A few rare coaches even have
decent graduation rates with their players
>
>Should poor applicants get priority over rich ones?
>That will never happen, even if it might be a good thing.
>And *it* would be unfair too.
If a university decides its goal is more than educating students, but rather
social goals like "promoting diversity" it should be acomplished in a non
racicially discriminatory manner.
Most people dont have a problem giving kids from difficult backrounds a bit
of a break
>
>However you slice the pizza, there will never be enough to
>go around. You know that. There is no completely fair way
>of doing it. It must be unfair, even without AA.
Really? What if a university was to establish minimum criteria for admission
(by major for example) review all applications carefully, and place the
accepted candidates names in a big drum. At the end of the enrollment period a
lottery is conducted where names are selected for admission?
Sounds pretty "fair" to me (This wont happen either)
>
>Now as to race, the only way to deal with race is to deal with race.
>There is no substitute for AA.
Yes there is.
Okay, you are tired of it.
>Everybody is tired of it. Can you say that racial equality of
>education has already been met and nothing more needs
>to be done?
At the U-M it is, by their own admission
The problem you have the minute you start claiming that "equality" hasnt been
met is that you cannot identify when it HAS been met?
There is no agreed upon method of evaluating "equality" that any 2 people
could agree upon.
We have already had 2 generations raised under AA. How many more
"keynes"..How many more?
>
>Yeah there are horror stories about admissions.
>Academics and bureaucrats are paid to screw things up.
>They screwed things up before AA, and they continue
>to screw things up.
The first step is to eliminate the discriminatory practices like those at the
U-M
There ought to be a real problem being addressed when the state/government is
going to promote the discrimination of one group over another
>
>I'm speaking as one who has been discriminated against
>on the basis of age - illegal maybe but universal. Not fair,
>but tough shit.
Try being a middle aged white guy in a company trying to increase its
"diversity" However, when I hired in the company was 97% white in the non
hourly ranks, so obviously some kind of discrimination existed. I can live with
the the "remedy" that has been effect to address that.
My employer has the "right" to employ/promote who they want as long as they
follow the law. A employer is not the government.
Discrimination hits pretty near everybody,
>young and old, black and white, rich and poor. That's life.
>There is no way to give everybody perfect justice.
It will never be "perfect"..but that doesnt mean the system cant be improved.
In the U-M case is a no brainer
>
>Eliminating AA will only bring in a new group of bitchers
>about how damn unfair the system is, and it will do
>nothing about our pervasive race problems.
For the U-M case AA has obviously outlived its usefullness. The "cure" is now
as bad as the disease it was enacted to remedy.
Should society sanction state sponsored racial discrimination for the sole
purpose of "diversity"?
That is the question being considered by the SCOTUS.
>
>There are black racists and white racists.
>I'll bet that damn near no one is free from racial bias,
>any more than they are free of ethnic bias, gender bias,
>regional bias, economic bias, or any other of our
>instinctive xenophobias and our inate self-righteousness.
You covered most of the biases available (dont forget religion). How we
address/resolve our own personal prejudices is private, individual matter
For policy/legal purposes, there needs to be a compelling reason for the
state to impose discrimination of one group over the rest.
By the U-M's own admission providing a remedy for past discrimination is not
the reason for its practices.
T.Carr
>
>Keynes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
TCarr13397
>>
>> >On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:52:18 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>From The Greeley Tribune, 12/15/02:
>> >
>> >>http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=GR&Date=20021215&C
>> ategory=NEWS&ArtNo=212150004&Ref=AR
>> >>
>> >>Hello, real world, do you have any jobs for me?
>> >>
>> >>Story by Jennifer Stanley
>> >
>>
>> Keynes Key...@earthlink.net
>>
>> >Tell those crybaby kids to get off their asses and get an education!!!
>> >
>>
>> What kind of job can you get with a major in Art History? Pour Coffee at
>the
>> local Starbucks?
>
"D.G. Porter" dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught
>Poor ignorant Carr -- he doesn't get it.
"ignorant" Carr works in the real world..not academia
>
>You learn a lot in any kind of research-oriented major -- how to look
>for info -- how to find it -- how to digest it -- how to classify it --
>how to extrapolate from it, etc.
>What you really need in one of these majors is MAJOR WRITING SKILLS.
>Then you can fall into any good secretarial white-collar job.
So you need a masters degree to be a secretary? Does that pay any better than
Starbucks? BTW..We call such people "administrative assistants" now.
A lot of kids major in what they "like" with no plan on what happens when
they leave college. That can result in a nice piece of paper and very limited
employment opportunities
In a real, for profit, enterprise a Masters in Art History isnt going to get
you much consideration. The experience doesnt translate to much of value in a
manufacturing/service company. IF you can get in over people with more revelant
degrees (Business, marketing, finance, engineering,IT, HR, etc...) you will
find yourself at a serious disadvantage for a period of time, as you need to
learn what your fellow employes already understand.
Really DG..What demand is there for "art history" majors? Would you hire one as
your accountant?
Other than sales, I dont know too many areas where a "art history" major could
realistically expect to find employment outside of the government or academia.
If you like art history..my recommendation would be to have a minor in field
where the demand for employment is higher..or learn to enjoy serving coffee to
those that did
T.Carr
D.G. Porter
>
> >Don't get me started on white punks with piercings. Or clowns with
> >their pants down their ass so far they could fart and lose their pants
> >completely.
>
> Each generation has its "way" to dress and act. Do you recall your parents
> reaction to "those damn longhairs"
>
> Hel we had to listen the Hendrix, joplin, etc.. away from home
One day I came home to find my copy of the JH Experience had been
"disappeared."
> Easy DG.. Did you generation have crew cuts like your parents wanted?
Jeez, I remember when my hair first touch my collar and they were
whining.
I had no moustache or beard of any kind when I dated this Armenian fox
and her asshole dad complained about my sideburns making me a "damn
hippie."
(Oh she WAS a fox!--wonder what happened to her?)
D.G. Porter
I'll arrange a tour of our local college/university campuses for you,
dude.
Trust me, it's rampant. My wife has an insider view.
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" dgpo...@NOSPAMMERSpacbell.naught
>
> >
> >You learn a lot in any kind of research-oriented major -- how to look
> >for info -- how to find it -- how to digest it -- how to classify it --
> >how to extrapolate from it, etc.
> >What you really need in one of these majors is MAJOR WRITING SKILLS.
> >Then you can fall into any good secretarial white-collar job.
>
> So you need a masters degree to be a secretary?
Even a Bachelors is better than a HSD.
But you'd be surprised (maybe not) at how many students get into the
universty now who can't even understand how to use a library (shit, we
were taught this in 7th grade!!).
> Does that pay any better than
> Starbucks? BTW..We call such people "administrative assistants" now.
>
> A lot of kids major in what they "like" with no plan on what happens when
> they leave college. That can result in a nice piece of paper and very limited
> employment opportunities
I had always planned to be a college professor. Then the rules changed.
However, my training taught me basic office skills. And I used to be
able to fall back on that. Unfortunately, the rules now say, "If you
haven't worked in an office in the last 6 months, get lost."
The fundamental problems is that we are letting people go to waste
because we see people the same way we see appliances -- use it for 6
month, a year, then throw it away.
I was going to get our printer fixed, but it looks like I can get a
better one for the same price (Lexmark sucks anyway). Built-in
obsolescence is the rule.
> In a real, for profit, enterprise a Masters in Art History isnt going to get
> you much consideration. The experience doesnt translate to much of value in a
> manufacturing/service company. IF you can get in over people with more revelant
> degrees (Business, marketing, finance, engineering,IT, HR, etc...) you will
> find yourself at a serious disadvantage for a period of time, as you need to
> learn what your fellow employes already understand.
Most business school grads I've met are dullards who couldn't stimulate
a teenager to get horny. In fact most authors I've consulted are
horrible writers.
> Really DG..What demand is there for "art history" majors? Would you hire one as
> your accountant?
Accountants are dull people. I wouldn't hire one to write an ad
campaign. But the art history major just might be able to put over a
real ass-kicking ad campaign. It's in the writing skills, and how one
maipulates ideas.
> Other than sales, I dont know too many areas where a "art history" major could
> realistically expect to find employment outside of the government or academia.
Advertising... who put those sublimial faces in the ice cubes?
Keynes
Culture you mean. That's where most racial problems are.
The culture of the south - easier going, less fastidious,
more violent, macho-honor system, etc.
Blacks brought that north in the 40's and there's still
a lot of it in the inner cities. Add to that the sour-grapes
attitude that discourages any black from being too white
(namely trying to succeed in the dominant white culture).
> You have your struggles, I have mine
>
> Now as I was saying..speak only for yourself when pontificating about racism
>
>>
>>> It is no improvement
>>>>to put nice Orwellian names on our biases.
>>>>
>>>>Admission and hiring policies are arbitrary and often
>>>>stupid and unfair. Eliminating AA is not going to change that.
>>>
>>> IF the problem does not exist (by the university's own admission) then why
>>>the solution?
>>>
The university is being disingenuous.
"Diversity" is another name for the same goal,
and they hoped it would provoke less backlash.
>>
>>This is a semantic quibble.
>
> Your dodge is duly noted. Do you have anything of substance to contribute to
>the discussion?
>
I report. You decide.
> What is the compelling reason for supporting state sponsored racial
>discrimination?
>
Well, duh...
>>
>>
>>> The plaintiffs provided a easy answer to the university to provide
>>>"diverstiy" without racial discrimination..and the university rejected it.
>>>
>>
>>What was their remedy?
>
> Factor in socio-economic backround. This would be race/gender neutral but
>would allow the universities to meet "diversity" goals.
>
Now the opposition is being disingenuous.
> You dont live that far from Michigan..I'm suprised this story hasnt been
>covered in your state
>
>>
>>>>There will always be the odd guy out, fair or not.
>>>
>>> When the status quo is wrong, it needs to be changed. The University could
>>>easily meet its "diversity" goals by factoring in socio-economic status..not
>>>race.
>>>
>>> T.Carr
>>
>>Listen to yourself taking here.
>>
>>"When the status quo is wrong, it needs to be changed."
>>
>>Of course. That's how we got AA in the first place.
>>More than 160 years late too.
>
> We have had it for over 40 years. How long do we ned it "keynes"? The
>University admits it isnt to remedy past discrimination
>
Are you color blind yet?
The university is playing word games.
> As far as 160 years too late..I wasnt part of that. However before you get
>too sanctimonious are you sure your positions will be viewed favorably in
>another 200 years?
>
They aren't all that popular right now.
>>
>>" The University could easily meet its "diversity" goals by factoring
>>in socio-economic status..not race."
>>
>>Without race, where is the diversity?
>
> The diversity of backround, experience and of ideas.
>
"Diversity" must include race.
> Is the educational experience improved(ie diversity) when you have 2 students
>from the same exclusive prep HS..one of which is black and the other white?
>
In that case, the minority ought to have no admission problems.
I can't see why you won't allow for the 'diversity' of HS quality.
> So again "keynes:" ..how long do the children have to pay for the real and
>imagined sins of the parents? AA has already been in effect for 2 generations.
>
Until we go color blind.
If there weren't a problem right now, you wouldn't be bitching.
>
>>
>>Now are you implying that minorities (probably excepting asians)
>>are STUPID? (Good thing you're not a racist.)
>
> Good thing you enjoy building strawmen. Why is it you start projecting when
>you start defending the indefensible?
>
Most of the anti-AA arguments rely on 'unfair' entry criteria,
and that ends up saying minorities are not as smart as others.
> AA was initiated to remedy past discrimination. The U-M has admitted that its
>practice is not to acomplish that goal
>
Like I said, they are lying. You knew that.
You just figured if the U changed the words
there was no reason for you to change the music.
> Yet you are defending state sponsored and supported discrimination for the
>sole purpose of a politically correct theory.
>
Not for theory. Not for PC.
Just a futile attempt to build a more balanced society.
Trust me. The good old days of no AA are not worth revisiting.
> Are you implying that minorities are "too stupid" to get into Universties
>without a help from the white liberal establishment?
>
Some schools are better than others.
Some kids test better than others.
If we pick applicants to meet our favored criteria,
(like why don't minorities know what I know,
and think like I think? They're stupid.)
then there will be much less minority enrollment,
as in CA and TX. And this will benefit society how?
>
>>
>>Or are you saying that smart minorities who are POOR
>>ought to be let in before dumb minorities who are rich (or poor)?
>>Isn't that what is being done? Do you imagine a U
>>will choose a dumb minority over a smart one?
>
> What I am "saying" is that in the absence of past discrimination at a
>particular institution, race should not be a factor..period.
>
Legalese. The legal out.
I'll accept your opinion that race should not be a factor.
That makes you not color blind, but blind to color.
David Duke would approve.
> Look at the message such a practice sends. Your race/ethnicity is more
>important that your efforts and acomplishments. Is that what the ideals of this
>country stand for in your view?
>
That's not the message sent.
Everybody knows that they have to perform.
Getting in to a school will not keep you there.
The freshman drop out rate for all ethnicity is high.
Kids who don't want to work don't last.
>. The U-M claims to want "diversity" yet equates asians with whites, (and
>probably others as well) How does that support the PC theory du jour of
>"diversity"
>
I doubt they do. If they do, it's because U-M sees few asians.
On the west coast they have to limit asians because they are
high performers as a group and would swamp the whites.
> In the U-M case I'm sure each and every successfully admitted applicant met
>the minimum criteria to be "considered". However when "certain" applicants are
>given the equivalent of a full GPA point increase they go from "considered" to
>"accepted" Others that would have been ranked higher without racial
>considerations were rejected
>
Fiddling the criteria is the bone of contention.
It is attempted to make up for variation in schools and prep.
By the sophomore year, the flunkees are gone.
This reduces enrollment enough to allow a bigger new crop.
> Now if the university wants a race neutral method of achieving "diversity"
>all they have to do is place consideration on socio-economic backround. It will
>have the effect of increasing "diversity" in a race neutral manner, and not
>create the backlash the current policy does
>
Why in the hell should they be 'race neutral'?
> How many people are going to really be upset about giving a kid from a poorer
>backround a break?
>
You are apparently.
You make no allowance for inferior HS prep.
>
>>(Except for in the athletic programs -- which are an
>>abomination and should be completely eliminated!
>>They degrade the school and are nothing but a
>>subsidy to professional sports.)
>
> That is a seperate topic, but be careful what you wish for. Take a look at
>the composition of the sports with the largest number of "scholarships" and the
>composition of those teams by race / ethnicity (ie football, track,etc...)
>
> Some universities still insist that their athletes actually study and go to
>class. However seldom are those programs "ranked". A few rare coaches even have
>decent graduation rates with their players
>
Very, very few care what's in an athlete's head.
>>
>>Should poor applicants get priority over rich ones?
>>That will never happen, even if it might be a good thing.
>>And *it* would be unfair too.
>
> If a university decides its goal is more than educating students, but rather
>social goals like "promoting diversity" it should be acomplished in a non
>racicially discriminatory manner.
>
College is the first exposure to the rest of society for most.
Look, your whole argument about discrimination is a sham.
You want to use non-discrimination in order to discriminate.
> Most people dont have a problem giving kids from difficult backrounds a bit
>of a break
>
>>
>>However you slice the pizza, there will never be enough to
>>go around. You know that. There is no completely fair way
>>of doing it. It must be unfair, even without AA.
>
> Really? What if a university was to establish minimum criteria for admission
>(by major for example) review all applications carefully, and place the
>accepted candidates names in a big drum. At the end of the enrollment period a
>lottery is conducted where names are selected for admission?
>
> Sounds pretty "fair" to me (This wont happen either)
>>
>>Now as to race, the only way to deal with race is to deal with race.
>>There is no substitute for AA.
>
> Yes there is.
>
Then what is it?
> Okay, you are tired of it.
>>Everybody is tired of it. Can you say that racial equality of
>>education has already been met and nothing more needs
>>to be done?
>
> At the U-M it is, by their own admission
>
> The problem you have the minute you start claiming that "equality" hasnt been
>met is that you cannot identify when it HAS been met?
>
Frankly, I believe in quotas. The word 'quota' has become code
for integration in general, and made into a epithet like 'liberal'.
Quotas are as fair as fair can be.
> There is no agreed upon method of evaluating "equality" that any 2 people
>could agree upon.
>
> We have already had 2 generations raised under AA. How many more
>"keynes"..How many more?
>
Until we get it right.
>>
>>Yeah there are horror stories about admissions.
>>Academics and bureaucrats are paid to screw things up.
>>They screwed things up before AA, and they continue
>>to screw things up.
>
> The first step is to eliminate the discriminatory practices like those at the
>U-M
>
All choices are discriminations.
In the absence of enough slots, they will forever be unfair.
> There ought to be a real problem being addressed when the state/government is
>going to promote the discrimination of one group over another
>
SOCIETY promotes one group over all others.
Do you deny that?
>>
>>I'm speaking as one who has been discriminated against
>>on the basis of age - illegal maybe but universal. Not fair,
>>but tough shit.
>
> Try being a middle aged white guy in a company trying to increase its
>"diversity" However, when I hired in the company was 97% white in the non
>hourly ranks, so obviously some kind of discrimination existed. I can live with
>the the "remedy" that has been effect to address that.
>
>My employer has the "right" to employ/promote who they want as long as they
>follow the law. A employer is not the government.
>
>Discrimination hits pretty near everybody,
>>young and old, black and white, rich and poor. That's life.
>>There is no way to give everybody perfect justice.
>
> It will never be "perfect"..but that doesnt mean the system cant be improved.
>In the U-M case is a no brainer
>
I agree. I just can't go with your argument against AA.
>>
>>Eliminating AA will only bring in a new group of bitchers
>>about how damn unfair the system is, and it will do
>>nothing about our pervasive race problems.
>
> For the U-M case AA has obviously outlived its usefullness. The "cure" is now
>as bad as the disease it was enacted to remedy.
>
Oh, really?
> Should society sanction state sponsored racial discrimination for the sole
>purpose of "diversity"?
>
Should society continue to discriminate de facto?
> That is the question being considered by the SCOTUS.
>
SCOTUS? Well, hell. All our problems are solved.
Poor 'borked' Thomas, recipient of the flow of AA
is dead set against it. Case closed.
>>
>>There are black racists and white racists.
>>I'll bet that damn near no one is free from racial bias,
>>any more than they are free of ethnic bias, gender bias,
>>regional bias, economic bias, or any other of our
>>instinctive xenophobias and our inate self-righteousness.
>
> You covered most of the biases available (dont forget religion). How we
>address/resolve our own personal prejudices is private, individual matter
>
> For policy/legal purposes, there needs to be a compelling reason for the
>state to impose discrimination of one group over the rest.
>
And you can see no reason?
Rico
NO IT Has not. Please provide the date of the first affrimative action
bill/policy/ruling handed down by the any branch of the government and then
subtract that number from 2002.
> TWO GENERATIONS.
>That's enough time for young people to get into good universities.
Hmm the children of the 40 year olds I speak of are only typically just now
reaching college age. How did 2 generations of them slip in?
>
>And I'm sick and tired of being passed over by "Diversity officers" who
>don't even look at your resume.
Please provide concrete example, I'll pass it on to a good friend who
specializes in Labor Law. A good suit against a company for discriminating
on the basis of race without taking qualification at all into consideration
has gotta be good for a big payout. If you don't wish to use my friend (and
I understand), then you should take your case to a local lawyer. You have a
case that could make you rich. Of ocurse if you are just blowing hot air...
>
>If you can't cut it and get into U of M on your SAT, go to a community
>college for a couple of years. You probably need it.
Hmm another friend of mine sent her son to one of those SAT prep courses,
you know they teach them how to take the test and several practice rounds,
that sort of thing. Now do you think his SAT score is going to be the same
as a kid of equal intelligence but whose parents could not afford to send
him to a prep course? Do you think it is possible, mind you just possible
that the poorer kid's parents aren't doctors or lawyers because they were
forced by the state to go to segregated schools in their formative years?
Not saying that it is so, just do you think it is possible?
TCarr13397
Keynes Key...@earthlink.net
>Culture you mean.
Socio economic means socio economic
People who complain that they "cant make ends meet" yet are 100 lbs
overweight, and smoke for example. The Trumps" of the world on the other end of
the spectrum.
That's where most racial problems are.
>The culture of the south - easier going, less fastidious,
>more violent, macho-honor system, etc.
>Blacks brought that north in the 40's and there's still
>a lot of it in the inner cities. Add to that the sour-grapes
>attitude that discourages any black from being too white
>(namely trying to succeed in the dominant white culture).
>
>
>> You have your struggles, I have mine
>>
>> Now as I was saying..speak only for yourself when pontificating about
>racism
>>
>>>
>>>> It is no improvement
>>>>>to put nice Orwellian names on our biases.
>>>>>
>>>>>Admission and hiring policies are arbitrary and often
>>>>>stupid and unfair. Eliminating AA is not going to change that.
>>>>
>>>> IF the problem does not exist (by the university's own admission) then
>why
>>>>the solution?
>>>>
>
>The university is being disingenuous.
>"Diversity" is another name for the same goal,
>and they hoped it would provoke less backlash.
They are trying to repackage racial discrimination in a nice new wrapper
>
>>>
>>>This is a semantic quibble.
>>
>> Your dodge is duly noted. Do you have anything of substance to contribute
>to
>>the discussion?
>>
>
>I report. You decide.
>
>> What is the compelling reason for supporting state sponsored racial
>>discrimination?
>>
>
>Well, duh...
Well what is it? It certaintly isnt to remedy past wrongs
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The plaintiffs provided a easy answer to the university to provide
>>>>"diverstiy" without racial discrimination..and the university rejected it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What was their remedy?
>>
>> Factor in socio-economic backround. This would be race/gender neutral but
>>would allow the universities to meet "diversity" goals.
>>
>
>Now the opposition is being disingenuous.
Other than your say-so how?
You are aware of the national demographics wrt income and socio-economic
backround?
>
>> You dont live that far from Michigan..I'm suprised this story hasnt been
>>covered in your state
>>
>>>
>>>>>There will always be the odd guy out, fair or not.
>>>>
>>>> When the status quo is wrong, it needs to be changed. The University
>could
>>>>easily meet its "diversity" goals by factoring in socio-economic
>status..not
>>>>race.
>>>>
>>>> T.Carr
>>>
>>>Listen to yourself taking here.
>>>
>>>"When the status quo is wrong, it needs to be changed."
>>>
>>>Of course. That's how we got AA in the first place.
>>>More than 160 years late too.
>>
>> We have had it for over 40 years. How long do we ned it "keynes"? The
>>University admits it isnt to remedy past discrimination
>>
>
>Are you color blind yet?
>The university is playing word games.
The University is dicriminating on the basis of race..for a very PC reason
>
>> As far as 160 years too late..I wasnt part of that. However before you get
>>too sanctimonious are you sure your positions will be viewed favorably in
>>another 200 years?
>>
>
>They aren't all that popular right now.
>
>>>
>>>" The University could easily meet its "diversity" goals by factoring
>>>in socio-economic status..not race."
>>>
>>>Without race, where is the diversity?
>>
>> The diversity of backround, experience and of ideas.
>>
>
>"Diversity" must include race.
What is wrong with a race neutral admissions system and the demographics of
the applicants providing the desired "diversity"
>
>> Is the educational experience improved(ie diversity) when you have 2
>students
>>from the same exclusive prep HS..one of which is black and the other white?
>>
>
>In that case, the minority ought to have no admission problems.
In that case how is "diversity" achieved?
>I can't see why you won't allow for the 'diversity' of HS quality.
How do you propose to quantify it?
Are you referring to real metrics like graduation rates, GPA's etc.. or
something else?
>
>> So again "keynes:" ..how long do the children have to pay for the real and
>>imagined sins of the parents? AA has already been in effect for 2
>generations.
>>
>
>Until we go color blind.
>If there weren't a problem right now, you wouldn't be bitching.
So we need state sponsored discrimination until some "goal" is met that
cannot be measured or quantified?
The "problem" right now is that the University (with the governments support)
is using race as major criteria for admission. Its being used to remedy past
practice.
So we simply discriminate against new group of students the same thing we did
to a different group of students 50 years ago.
and that makes it "right"
>
>>
>>>
>>>Now are you implying that minorities (probably excepting asians)
>>>are STUPID? (Good thing you're not a racist.)
>>
>> Good thing you enjoy building strawmen. Why is it you start projecting
>when
>>you start defending the indefensible?
>>
>
>Most of the anti-AA arguments rely on 'unfair' entry criteria,
>and that ends up saying minorities are not as smart as others.
Whats "unfair" about existing entry criteria?
>
>> AA was initiated to remedy past discrimination. The U-M has admitted that
>its
>>practice is not to acomplish that goal
>>
>
>Like I said, they are lying. You knew that.
>You just figured if the U changed the words
>there was no reason for you to change the music.
The University has been caught in its "lie" We will see what the SCOTUS says
this spring
>
>> Yet you are defending state sponsored and supported discrimination for the
>>sole purpose of a politically correct theory.
>>
>
>Not for theory. Not for PC.
Yes..PC Theory
>Just a futile attempt to build a more balanced society.
State sponsored discrimination to remedy past wrongs is tolerable. State
sponsored discrimination to reach some vague PC (ie diversity) goal is not
>Trust me. The good old days of no AA are not worth revisiting.
Trust has to be earned....
The civil rights movement started with the ideal of equality of opportunity.
After 2 generations of AA, the university admits the past wrongs are no longer
present.
>
>> Are you implying that minorities are "too stupid" to get into Universties
>>without a help from the white liberal establishment?
>>
>
>Some schools are better than others.
>Some kids test better than others.
Thats why GPA, extra-curricular activities are ususally factored in as well
>If we pick applicants to meet our favored criteria,
>(like why don't minorities know what I know,
>and think like I think? They're stupid.)
You are projecting..again
>then there will be much less minority enrollment,
>as in CA and TX. And this will benefit society how?
Did you ever really read the research on that?
Total minority enrollment did not decline in those states. The enrollment at
those specific universites that provided the quotas went down..but the
increased elsewhere.
So how does society benefit by admitting less qualified applicants again
"keynes"
>
>>
>>>
>>>Or are you saying that smart minorities who are POOR
>>>ought to be let in before dumb minorities who are rich (or poor)?
>>>Isn't that what is being done? Do you imagine a U
>>>will choose a dumb minority over a smart one?
>>
>> What I am "saying" is that in the absence of past discrimination at a
>>particular institution, race should not be a factor..period.
>>
>
>Legalese. The legal out.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws..not people are we not?
>I'll accept your opinion that race should not be a factor.
>That makes you not color blind, but blind to color.
>David Duke would approve.
When you advocate state sponsored and supported racial discrimination there
ought to be a real reason and need for it. Not the PC theory du jour
Apparently you like the idea of "payback" to those evillll white kids for
what their grandparents did generations ago
As far as "David Duke" File your BS where the sun dont shine
>
>> Look at the message such a practice sends. Your race/ethnicity is more
>>important that your efforts and acomplishments. Is that what the ideals of
>this
>>country stand for in your view?
>>
>
>That's not the message sent.
Really? Because you say so?
>Everybody knows that they have to perform.
>Getting in to a school will not keep you there.
>The freshman drop out rate for all ethnicity is high.
>Kids who don't want to work don't last.
The statistics indicate that the drop out rates are not equivalent
>
>>. The U-M claims to want "diversity" yet equates asians with whites, (and
>>probably others as well) How does that support the PC theory du jour of
>>"diversity"
>>
>
>I doubt they do. If they do, it's because U-M sees few asians.
You are wrong relative to Asian applicants into the U-M
>On the west coast they have to limit asians because they are
>high performers as a group and would swamp the whites.
Assuming your claim is accurate, if the Asians "swamp the whites" what would
happen to the other ethnic groups?
>
>
>> In the U-M case I'm sure each and every successfully admitted applicant
>met
>>the minimum criteria to be "considered". However when "certain" applicants
>are
>>given the equivalent of a full GPA point increase they go from "considered"
>to
>>"accepted" Others that would have been ranked higher without racial
>>considerations were rejected
>>
>
>Fiddling the criteria is the bone of contention.
Fiddling..on the basis of race/ethnicity
>It is attempted to make up for variation in schools and prep.
No..Its attempted to make sure that the "diversity" goals are achieved
>By the sophomore year, the flunkees are gone.
>This reduces enrollment enough to allow a bigger new crop.
Not too many transfers after the slots have already been filled
>
>
>> Now if the university wants a race neutral method of achieving "diversity"
>>all they have to do is place consideration on socio-economic backround. It
>will
>>have the effect of increasing "diversity" in a race neutral manner, and not
>>create the backlash the current policy does
>>
>
>Why in the hell should they be 'race neutral'?
Because (by the universities own admission) they are not trying to remedy
past discrimination
So Keynes..Why should the university have a racially discriminatory
admissions policy
>
>> How many people are going to really be upset about giving a kid from a
>poorer
>>backround a break?
>>
>
>You are apparently.
Not in the least. I dont know how you can make that claim based on the above
discussion.
>You make no allowance for inferior HS prep.
How do you propose to accomodate that? By advancing the idea that minority
dominated HS are all inferior?
Does a student who is a member of the "right" minority group automatically
come from a inferior HS?
>
>>
>>>(Except for in the athletic programs -- which are an
>>>abomination and should be completely eliminated!
>>>They degrade the school and are nothing but a
>>>subsidy to professional sports.)
>>
>> That is a seperate topic, but be careful what you wish for. Take a look at
>>the composition of the sports with the largest number of "scholarships" and
>the
>>composition of those teams by race / ethnicity (ie football, track,etc...)
>>
>> Some universities still insist that their athletes actually study and go
>to
>>class. However seldom are those programs "ranked". A few rare coaches even
>have
>>decent graduation rates with their players
>>
>
>Very, very few care what's in an athlete's head.
>
>>>
>>>Should poor applicants get priority over rich ones?
>>>That will never happen, even if it might be a good thing.
>>>And *it* would be unfair too.
>>
>> If a university decides its goal is more than educating students, but
>rather
>>social goals like "promoting diversity" it should be acomplished in a non
>>racicially discriminatory manner.
>>
>
>College is the first exposure to the rest of society for most.
College has very little in common with "the rest of society". Its a education
enviroment. where the vast majority are young, healthy and want to learn.
>
>Look, your whole argument about discrimination is a sham.
>You want to use non-discrimination in order to discriminate.
When you have more applicants than openings some mechanism must be developed
to ration.
In the absence of past racial discrimination where a remedy is needed, the
process should not be based on race/ethnicity.
To pretend that the universities current policy is somehow fair and just is
indeed the true "sham"
>
>> Most people dont have a problem giving kids from difficult backrounds a
>bit
>>of a break
>>
>>>
>>>However you slice the pizza, there will never be enough to
>>>go around. You know that. There is no completely fair way
>>>of doing it. It must be unfair, even without AA.
>>
>> Really? What if a university was to establish minimum criteria for
>admission
>>(by major for example) review all applications carefully, and place the
>>accepted candidates names in a big drum. At the end of the enrollment period
>a
>>lottery is conducted where names are selected for admission?
>>
>> Sounds pretty "fair" to me (This wont happen either)
>>>
>>>Now as to race, the only way to deal with race is to deal with race.
>>>There is no substitute for AA.
>>
>> Yes there is.
>>
>
>Then what is it?
See above. It was presented and ignored
>
>> Okay, you are tired of it.
>>>Everybody is tired of it. Can you say that racial equality of
>>>education has already been met and nothing more needs
>>>to be done?
>>
>> At the U-M it is, by their own admission
>>
>> The problem you have the minute you start claiming that "equality" hasnt
>been
>>met is that you cannot identify when it HAS been met?
>>
>
>Frankly, I believe in quotas. The word 'quota' has become code
>for integration in general, and made into a epithet like 'liberal'.
>Quotas are as fair as fair can be.
Your secret decoder ring of definitions must be in a very limited supply
Diversity enforced by quotas? What a interesting concept
>
>> There is no agreed upon method of evaluating "equality" that any 2 people
>>could agree upon.
>>
>> We have already had 2 generations raised under AA. How many more
>>"keynes"..How many more?
>>
>
>Until we get it right.
You will never "get it right" by advancing racial discrimination for the
purposes the university defends
>
>>>
>>>Yeah there are horror stories about admissions.
>>>Academics and bureaucrats are paid to screw things up.
>>>They screwed things up before AA, and they continue
>>>to screw things up.
>>
>> The first step is to eliminate the discriminatory practices like those at
>the
>>U-M
>>
>
>All choices are discriminations.
>In the absence of enough slots, they will forever be unfair.
Most people dont find the idea of discrimination based on merit unfair.
Do you?
For larger societal "goals" (diverstiy) providing consideration based on
socio economic backround (giving a struggling kid break) will not be met with
much objection either
>
>> There ought to be a real problem being addressed when the state/government
>is
>>going to promote the discrimination of one group over another
>>
>
>SOCIETY promotes one group over all others.
>Do you deny that?
The laws of the land (that reflect society) attempt to be relatively neutral
The case in point is one of law, not society
>
>>>
>>>I'm speaking as one who has been discriminated against
>>>on the basis of age - illegal maybe but universal. Not fair,
>>>but tough shit.
>>
>> Try being a middle aged white guy in a company trying to increase its
>>"diversity" However, when I hired in the company was 97% white in the non
>>hourly ranks, so obviously some kind of discrimination existed. I can live
>with
>>the the "remedy" that has been effect to address that.
>>
>>My employer has the "right" to employ/promote who they want as long as they
>>follow the law. A employer is not the government.
>>
>>Discrimination hits pretty near everybody,
>>>young and old, black and white, rich and poor. That's life.
>>>There is no way to give everybody perfect justice.
>>
>> It will never be "perfect"..but that doesnt mean the system cant be
>improved.
>>In the U-M case is a no brainer
>>
>
>I agree. I just can't go with your argument against AA.
I'm not suprised. You want AA to become part and parcel of society forever.
>
>>>
>>>Eliminating AA will only bring in a new group of bitchers
>>>about how damn unfair the system is, and it will do
>>>nothing about our pervasive race problems.
>>
>> For the U-M case AA has obviously outlived its usefullness. The "cure" is
>now
>>as bad as the disease it was enacted to remedy.
>>
>
>Oh, really?
yes..really. The University is discriminating on the basis of race for no
other purpose than to meet a "diversity" goal
>
>> Should society sanction state sponsored racial discrimination for the sole
>>purpose of "diversity"?
>>
>
>Should society continue to discriminate de facto?
What is the case for state sponsored racial discrimination in the U-M
admissions? It isnt to remedy past discrimination
>
>> That is the question being considered by the SCOTUS.
>>
>
>SCOTUS? Well, hell. All our problems are solved.
>Poor 'borked' Thomas,
I'm hoping to even the "liberals" recognize that "diversity" goals are not
sufficient reason to endorse state sponsored discrimination
As far as "borking"..Your side perfected it. and it backfired in that case
recipient of the flow of AA
>is dead set against it. Case closed.
I'd prefer a 7-2 ruling. Probably be another 5-4 depending on what O'Connor
does
>
>
>>>
>>>There are black racists and white racists.
>>>I'll bet that damn near no one is free from racial bias,
>>>any more than they are free of ethnic bias, gender bias,
>>>regional bias, economic bias, or any other of our
>>>instinctive xenophobias and our inate self-righteousness.
>>
>> You covered most of the biases available (dont forget religion). How we
>>address/resolve our own personal prejudices is private, individual matter
>>
>> For policy/legal purposes, there needs to be a compelling reason for the
>>state to impose discrimination of one group over the rest.
>>
>
>And you can see no reason?
"Diversity" goals are not a compelling reason for state sponsored and
supported racial discrimination (imo)
Obviously you disagree
T.Carr
ha
You imagine so, anyway, as well as trying to tell yourself that others
don't have a far more comprehensive view.
How about those abuses that the law addresses?
Trying to tell yourself those aren't a problem anymore?
Otto Von Bismark
make 120 K a year for working a 6 hour day, ,4 day week and they went on strike
tis summer for MORE PAY.
The Frog wrote:
> Amazing what happens when you make business evil, hamstringing it with punds
> and pounds of federal laws that attempt to micromanage, laws that force it
> to hire the less qualified because of their affiliation to a favored and
> protected political group (racial, gender, etc.) instead of who is best and
> powerful labor unions that pay upwards of 90K a year for jobs that on the
> open market would pay only half that.
>
> And now we bitch about the job situation and why all the business is going
> overseas......A look at the big picture will answer this question for you.
> You can't have it both ways.....
>
> The Frog
>
> "Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:se5pvusjn3mbrj819...@4ax.com...
> >
> > From The Greeley Tribune, 12/15/02:
> >
> http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=GR&Date=20021215&Categ
> ory=NEWS&ArtNo=212150004&Ref=AR
> >
> > Hello, real world, do you have any jobs for me?
> >
> > Story by Jennifer Stanley
> >
> > One person stood out Saturday among the sea of University of Northern
> > Colorado students dressed in blue robes.
> >
> > From Chris Schneider's graduation cap, the words "hire me" glared up
> > to the crowd gathered in Butler-Hancock Hall for the fall commencement
> > ceremony.
> >
> > The message was a signal that amid a time of celebration, many
> > graduates are hunting for jobs even as companies use layoffs to cope
> > with a sluggish economy.
> >
> > "I can't find a job. One already said I'm overqualified. For some
> > jobs, there's like 50,000 applicants," said Schneider, a computer
> > information system major.
> >
> > He was among about 600 students who accepted their undergraduate
> > diplomas, leaving academia for the real world.
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> >
> > College grads come face to face with the harsh realities of the
> > disastrous Bush economy.
> >
> > Harry
> >
> > "The Bush administration is marinated in oil."
> >
> > Ralph Nader
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
G.N.
"Otto Von Bismark" <OVB@blood&steel.com> wrote in message
news:v0umicp...@corp.supernews.com...
Senator Palpatine
taxes and micromanaging your lives is a good thing.
> No, I've listen to right wing commentators for over a decade tell me a tax
> cut is the cure all for the economy. Those same commentators said the
> Clinton tax increase in the early portion of his administration would sink
> the economy - greatest peace time expansion in 50 years. So it has been
> over a year now since the tax cut, when is the economy going to be cured
> or even show real signs of being on its way?