You Forgot AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, Michelle. What About THAT Racism ?

[PaintMyHouse]

I think this thread started off going down the wrong path.
Does anyone think that the Obama's would be in the Whitehouse today knowing this back then?

They were supposed to be post-racial....They were served up to us as blacks but not blacks with a chip on their shoulder.
Now we discover that we were tricked into believing they had moved on.
Does anyone think this race-baiting First lady would have a snowball's chance in Hell of occupying the Whitehouse if she had let her true feelings be known back then????


I warned everyone......and they said I was just being a racist.

White America gave them the benefit of the doubt and they've squandered this opportunity to heal the wounds of this nation.....and instead greatly contributed to reopening new ones.

They aren't responsible for the wounds of this nation, Whitey is the one who brought them here, in chains, and then stood on their necks for a few hundred years, when they weren't hanging the uppity ones from the trees that is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The book is critical of political correctness in higher education and the consequent dilution of academic rigor.

The fiend!

Come on, man. Go after the arguments, not the author. Let's get a real discussion going here.

Your argument started with AA = Bad. Where exactly would you like to go with that?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The ******* are stupid and you got screwed because you're not a ******. Got it, Whitey.

why all the little *******'s spell it out coward

As you can see, one cannot do so here, asswipe, and I do spell it out.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And as such it contradicts itself since "discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color" is EXACTLY what AA does to Whites (and often to non-Blacks too)

White women are the number 1 beneficiaries of AA.

Try again, stupid

 

[syonidv]

I admire your blind faith in the power of social engineering in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

But we agree! End it! Get rid of it! We needn't agree on the reason why.

Contradictory evidence? From where, Stormfront? Post it.

"Stormfront"? OK... um... doody head.

A case by Stanford Magazine (bold by me):

Over the past quarter of a century, Stanford has been discriminating in favor of racial minorities in admissions, hiring, tenure, contracting and financial aid. But only recently has the University been forced to rethink these policies in the face of an emerging public debate over affirmative action.

We are beginning to see why. Originally conceived as a means to redress discrimination, racial preferences have instead promoted it. And rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus. In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality.

Take, for instance, the claim that racial preferences help the "disadvantaged." In reality, as the Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell has observed, preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians (who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers). If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.

Another myth is that preferences simply give minority applicants a small "plus." In reality, the average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points in 1992, according to data compiled by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and cited in Richard herrnstein and Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve.

The fundamental unfairness and arbitrariness of preferences -- why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee? -- has led supporters to shift rationales in recent years. Instead of a remedy for disadvantage, many supporters now claim that preferences promote "diversity." This same push for "diversity" also has led Stanford to create racially segregated dormitories, racially segregated freshman orientation programs, racially segregated graduation ceremonies and curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies.​

I strongly recommend reading the full article.

You might also consider the legions of non-blacks on this message board (and countless others like it) resentful for blacks being promoted into jobs, schools, and other positions through discriminatory policies.

That is the effect of Affirmative Action on people's attitudes. That's its legacy.

Stupid *******, who let them in???

And whitey approves only when whitey is getting all the breaks. That has and never will change for the overtly racist and xenophobic morons here.

Are you actually capable of debating? Or are your talents limited to raging against "whitey" and stringing together asterisks?

Read the Stanford article and present your rebuttal. Maybe you'll change your mind on the issue.

Read it. Claptrap, as are the authors. Just more whitey bitching about all the breaks going to the ******* which makes whitey angry so we should do away with it, even though it worked and still does.

Suit yourself.

If you have nothing to back up your claims, I don't know why you're bothering to post here. You're not going to change people's minds with satire mocking "whitey".

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Contradictory evidence? From where, Stormfront? Post it.

"Stormfront"? OK... um... doody head.

A case by Stanford Magazine (bold by me):

Over the past quarter of a century, Stanford has been discriminating in favor of racial minorities in admissions, hiring, tenure, contracting and financial aid. But only recently has the University been forced to rethink these policies in the face of an emerging public debate over affirmative action.

We are beginning to see why. Originally conceived as a means to redress discrimination, racial preferences have instead promoted it. And rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus. In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality.

Take, for instance, the claim that racial preferences help the "disadvantaged." In reality, as the Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell has observed, preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians (who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers). If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.

Another myth is that preferences simply give minority applicants a small "plus." In reality, the average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points in 1992, according to data compiled by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and cited in Richard herrnstein and Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve.

The fundamental unfairness and arbitrariness of preferences -- why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee? -- has led supporters to shift rationales in recent years. Instead of a remedy for disadvantage, many supporters now claim that preferences promote "diversity." This same push for "diversity" also has led Stanford to create racially segregated dormitories, racially segregated freshman orientation programs, racially segregated graduation ceremonies and curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies.​

I strongly recommend reading the full article.

You might also consider the legions of non-blacks on this message board (and countless others like it) resentful for blacks being promoted into jobs, schools, and other positions through discriminatory policies.

That is the effect of Affirmative Action on people's attitudes. That's its legacy.

Stupid *******, who let them in???

And whitey approves only when whitey is getting all the breaks. That has and never will change for the overtly racist and xenophobic morons here.

Are you actually capable of debating? Or are your talents limited to raging against "whitey" and stringing together asterisks?

Read the Stanford article and present your rebuttal. Maybe you'll change your mind on the issue.

Read it. Claptrap, as are the authors. Just more whitey bitching about all the breaks going to the ******* which makes whitey angry so we should do away with it, even though it worked and still does.

Suit yourself.

If you have nothing to back up your claims, I don't know why you're bothering to post here. You're not going to change people's minds with satire mocking "whitey".

I have no intention of changing minds. I speak the truths to morons who believe propaganda.

And from the same mag (my bold):

Gerhard Casper on Affirmative Action
In a speech to the Faculty Senate last October, Stanford President Gerhard Casper defended affirmative action. Excerpts:

Photo: Robert Holmgren



Affirmative action does not require, and does not mean, quotas or preferment of unqualified over qualified individuals. Indeed, such preferment may violate anti-discrimination laws. Affirmative action is based on the judgment that a policy of true equal opportunity needs to create opportunities for members of historically underrepresented groups to be drawn into various walks of life from which they might otherwise be shut out. Barriers continue to exist in society, and therefore affirmative action asks us to cast our net more widely to broaden the competition and to engage in more active efforts for locating and recruiting applicants.

Of course, the very act of broadening the competition means that more candidates will seek, and be considered for, the same finite number of admissions places or employment openings and the competition for them will therefore be more intense. It would be hypocritical to suggest that affirmative action, even without quotas, does not diminish the opportunities for some who, in the past, might have benefited from a narrower casting of nets or narrower definitions of merit.

If the invisible hand could be relied upon to produce admissions pools or employment pools that reflect the ideal of equal opportunity at all levels of society, including in the leadership positions for which Stanford prepares, special outreach would not be necessary. If the members of society mostly ignored race and ethnicity, we would forgo taking them into consideration. We hope that one day we will be able to do so.

I am, of course, fully aware of the fact that my view of the matter leads me to take into consideration criteria that are very problematic. There is, first of all, the utter arbitrariness of racial and ethnic labeling. Boxes to be checked may look neat on paper but there is little underlying or inherent sense. . . .

These reservations, however, do not diminish my belief that institutions such as Stanford, if indeed they want to be universities of the highest degree, need the discretion to do as best they can in their efforts to find and educate the leaders of tomorrow.

Stanford Magazine - Article

 

[Wildman]

Then how come AA benefits WHITE women the most?

do you have any proof to back up that huge pile of

 

[ClosedCaption]

You name and throughout history and one constant remains.

Give anything to blacks and whites will be mad about it. You name it and they've opposed it while crying foul

 

[syonidv]

The book is critical of political correctness in higher education and the consequent dilution of academic rigor.

The fiend!

Come on, man. Go after the arguments, not the author. Let's get a real discussion going here.

Your argument started with AA = Bad. Where exactly would you like to go with that?

The thesis in the OP is that AA = racism.

I think even you would admit that many AA policies are plainly discriminatory, and that discrimination is based on race. The sine qua non of Affirmative Action is that black Americans are--due to circumstances uniquely pertaining to blacks--unable to compete with whites on a level playing field and therefore must be insinuated into academic/work positions above their inherent qualifications. If that doesn't constitute racism, I don't know what does.

The fact that the intent is to somehow "compensate" for old social injustices is irrelevant. It's still racism.

You obviously disagree, and we'd all welcome a reasonable argument as to why.

I have no intention of changing minds. I speak the truths to morons who believe propaganda.

...for no reason, apparently.

 

[protectionist]

Affirmative action is not racism. It is a remedy for past racism.

It's racism, Carbineer.

Not only does it satisfy the literal definition of the word, it satisfies the spirit of it as well. Affirmative Action is the racism of low expectation. It remedies nothing; it's instrumental in perpetuating the belief that blacks are inferior students and workers; it breeds resentment.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and Affirmative Action is both morally and pragmatically wrong.

AA worked, quite well, so well in fact it's almost no longer necessary. How sad, for your kind...

The way it has "worked" , as you call it, is to wreck the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans , by depriving them of economic opportunities, they should have had, and were entitled to. Just like the graduate school assistantships that I, and 16 other non-Blacks, should have gotten.

 

[protectionist]

You name and throughout history and one constant remains.

Give anything to blacks and whites will be mad about it. You name it and they've opposed it while crying foul

I'm not mad about giving to Blacks. I'm mad about taking away from Whites, and others.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The book is critical of political correctness in higher education and the consequent dilution of academic rigor.

The fiend!

Come on, man. Go after the arguments, not the author. Let's get a real discussion going here.

Your argument started with AA = Bad. Where exactly would you like to go with that?

The thesis in the OP is that AA = racism.

I think even you would admit that many AA policies are plainly discriminatory, and that discrimination is based on race. The sine qua non of Affirmative Action is that black Americans are--due to circumstances uniquely pertaining to blacks--unable to compete with whites on a level playing field and therefore must be insinuated into academic/work positions above their inherent qualifications. If that doesn't constitute racism, I don't know what does.

The fact that the intent is to somehow "compensate" for old social injustices is irrelevant. It's still racism.

You obviously disagree, and we'd all welcome a reasonable argument as to why.

I have no intention of changing minds. I speak the truths to morons who believe propaganda.

...for no reason, apparently.

My reasons are none of your business. Had whitey treated the rest of society fairly, he didn't, there would have been no need for AA. Call it racism if you like but it truth it is payback, which is a bitch eh? In a zero-sum game somebody has to lose. For centuries the darkies lost out because of race, now whitey does at times. Cry me a fuckin' river...

 

[protectionist]

"Stormfront"? OK... um... doody head.

A case by Stanford Magazine (bold by me):

Over the past quarter of a century, Stanford has been discriminating in favor of racial minorities in admissions, hiring, tenure, contracting and financial aid. But only recently has the University been forced to rethink these policies in the face of an emerging public debate over affirmative action.

We are beginning to see why. Originally conceived as a means to redress discrimination, racial preferences have instead promoted it. And rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus. In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality.

Take, for instance, the claim that racial preferences help the "disadvantaged." In reality, as the Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell has observed, preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians (who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers). If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.

Another myth is that preferences simply give minority applicants a small "plus." In reality, the average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points in 1992, according to data compiled by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and cited in Richard herrnstein and Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve.

The fundamental unfairness and arbitrariness of preferences -- why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee? -- has led supporters to shift rationales in recent years. Instead of a remedy for disadvantage, many supporters now claim that preferences promote "diversity." This same push for "diversity" also has led Stanford to create racially segregated dormitories, racially segregated freshman orientation programs, racially segregated graduation ceremonies and curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies.​

I strongly recommend reading the full article.

You might also consider the legions of non-blacks on this message board (and countless others like it) resentful for blacks being promoted into jobs, schools, and other positions through discriminatory policies.

That is the effect of Affirmative Action on people's attitudes. That's its legacy.

Stupid *******, who let them in???

And whitey approves only when whitey is getting all the breaks. That has and never will change for the overtly racist and xenophobic morons here.

Are you actually capable of debating? Or are your talents limited to raging against "whitey" and stringing together asterisks?

Read the Stanford article and present your rebuttal. Maybe you'll change your mind on the issue.

Read it. Claptrap, as are the authors. Just more whitey bitching about all the breaks going to the ******* which makes whitey angry so we should do away with it, even though it worked and still does.

Suit yourself.

If you have nothing to back up your claims, I don't know why you're bothering to post here. You're not going to change people's minds with satire mocking "whitey".

I have no intention of changing minds. I speak the truths to morons who believe propaganda.

And from the same mag (my bold):

Gerhard Casper on Affirmative Action
In a speech to the Faculty Senate last October, Stanford President Gerhard Casper defended affirmative action. Excerpts:

Photo: Robert Holmgren



Affirmative action does not require, and does not mean, quotas or preferment of unqualified over qualified individuals. Indeed, such preferment may violate anti-discrimination laws. Affirmative action is based on the judgment that a policy of true equal opportunity needs to create opportunities for members of historically underrepresented groups to be drawn into various walks of life from which they might otherwise be shut out. Barriers continue to exist in society, and therefore affirmative action asks us to cast our net more widely to broaden the competition and to engage in more active efforts for locating and recruiting applicants.

Of course, the very act of broadening the competition means that more candidates will seek, and be considered for, the same finite number of admissions places or employment openings and the competition for them will therefore be more intense. It would be hypocritical to suggest that affirmative action, even without quotas, does not diminish the opportunities for some who, in the past, might have benefited from a narrower casting of nets or narrower definitions of merit.

If the invisible hand could be relied upon to produce admissions pools or employment pools that reflect the ideal of equal opportunity at all levels of society, including in the leadership positions for which Stanford prepares, special outreach would not be necessary. If the members of society mostly ignored race and ethnicity, we would forgo taking them into consideration. We hope that one day we will be able to do so.

I am, of course, fully aware of the fact that my view of the matter leads me to take into consideration criteria that are very problematic. There is, first of all, the utter arbitrariness of racial and ethnic labeling. Boxes to be checked may look neat on paper but there is little underlying or inherent sense. . . .

These reservations, however, do not diminish my belief that institutions such as Stanford, if indeed they want to be universities of the highest degree, need the discretion to do as best they can in their efforts to find and educate the leaders of tomorrow.

Stanford Magazine - Article

You actually think putting some blurb of some Black race, ass-kisser,hypocrite on this page is going to exonerate AA from the racism that it is. Don't talk stupid. You're demeaning the thread.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You name and throughout history and one constant remains.

Give anything to blacks and whites will be mad about it. You name it and they've opposed it while crying foul

I'm not mad about giving to Blacks. I'm mad about taking away from Whites, and others.

And everything ever given to blacks, whites see it as taking away from them.

Whites have the playground so of course asking them to share the playground is taking away from them because you want it all like it used to be.

Boo hoo...

 

[Wildman]

White House for whities only eh Wildman?

if it were occupied by an honest America loving BLACK man/woman who upholds their oath of office, defends our Southern border against illegals, muslimes, criminals and people like you and all your liberscum slimy America hating sons-of-bitches.

got it now ??

........

 

[mudwhistle]

Contradictory evidence? From where, Stormfront? Post it.

"Stormfront"? OK... um... doody head.

A case by Stanford Magazine (bold by me):

Over the past quarter of a century, Stanford has been discriminating in favor of racial minorities in admissions, hiring, tenure, contracting and financial aid. But only recently has the University been forced to rethink these policies in the face of an emerging public debate over affirmative action.

We are beginning to see why. Originally conceived as a means to redress discrimination, racial preferences have instead promoted it. And rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus. In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality.

Take, for instance, the claim that racial preferences help the "disadvantaged." In reality, as the Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell has observed, preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians (who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers). If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.

Another myth is that preferences simply give minority applicants a small "plus." In reality, the average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points in 1992, according to data compiled by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and cited in Richard herrnstein and Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve.

The fundamental unfairness and arbitrariness of preferences -- why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee? -- has led supporters to shift rationales in recent years. Instead of a remedy for disadvantage, many supporters now claim that preferences promote "diversity." This same push for "diversity" also has led Stanford to create racially segregated dormitories, racially segregated freshman orientation programs, racially segregated graduation ceremonies and curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies.​

I strongly recommend reading the full article.

You might also consider the legions of non-blacks on this message board (and countless others like it) resentful for blacks being promoted into jobs, schools, and other positions through discriminatory policies.

That is the effect of Affirmative Action on people's attitudes. That's its legacy.

Stupid *******, who let them in???

And whitey approves only when whitey is getting all the breaks. That has and never will change for the overtly racist and xenophobic morons here.

Are you actually capable of debating? Or are your talents limited to raging against "whitey" and stringing together asterisks?

Read the Stanford article and present your rebuttal. Maybe you'll change your mind on the issue.

Read it. Claptrap, as are the authors. Just more whitey bitching about all the breaks going to the ******* which makes whitey angry so we should do away with it, even though it worked and still does.

Suit yourself.

If you have nothing to back up your claims, I don't know why you're bothering to post here. You're not going to change people's minds with satire mocking "whitey".

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The way it has "worked" , as you call it, is to wreck the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans...

Such total bullshit total bullshit doesn't even begin to cover it. You are a bitter old white man too blind to see that it wasn't about you nor is life fair. Suck it up, Whitey, you got to be top dog by default long enough and there is no violin small enough for me to play for your "suffering". Take your whitey as victim act to the grave, where it belongs.

 

[protectionist]

My reasons are none of your business. Had whitey treated the rest of society fairly, he didn't, there would have been no need for AA. Call it racism if you like but it truth it is payback, which is a bitch eh? In a zero-sum game somebody has to lose. For centuries the darkies lost out because of race, now whitey does at times. Cry me a fuckin' river...

Payback ? Against whom ? Hundreds of people who never did anyone any harm, that's whom. You are talking like an idiot. AA victims never harmed anyone, and 2015 Blacks, or 2005 Blacks never experienced Jim Crow.

And Jim Crow wasn't done by "Whitey, you asshole. It was done by a tiny minority of Whites only, just like how slavery began, and was maintained.

NO!! Nobody has to lose. If you want to do AA to help the disadvantaged, than help the disadvantaged, not people of a race.

 

[Wildman]

I speak the truths...[/QUOTE]

ooooh !! when have you ever spoken any truth ?

 

[protectionist]

The way it has "worked" , as you call it, is to wreck the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans...

Such total bullshit total bullshit doesn't even begin to cover it. You are a bitter old white man too blind to see that it wasn't about you nor is life fair. Suck it up, Whitey, you got to be top dog by default long enough and there is no violin small enough for me to play for your "suffering". Take your whitey as victim act to the grave, where it belongs.

Obviously you're nothing but a fucking racist ****** idiot, and you're lucky I'm not in front of you right now, or you'd be having your ass handed to you, big time, just like I'm handing you your ass verbally in this thread, and you know it.