Bad day for AA

[tinselwolverine]

zyxt...

I like to read about your ideas...

BUT -

Your walls of text, when I see them...I just can't even start.

Now, maybe your perspective is "Cool - if somebody doesn't want to read my walls of text...well I actually don't want any of them to read my walls of text...."

Which would be a very valid opinion, if in fact, that is your opinion.

 

[zyxt9]

zyxt...

I like to read about your ideas...

BUT -

Your walls of text, when I see them...I just can't even start.

Now, maybe your perspective is "Cool - if somebody doesn't want to read my walls of text...well I actually don't want any of them to read my walls of text...."

Which would be a very valid opinion, if in fact, that is your opinion.

Sorry tinsel...i will work on making them shor....

 

[zyxt9]

Quickly, AA needs 2b reduced in favor of helping anyone from disadvantaged life, regardless of race by changing current mindsets in those communities

 

[Michchamp]

So now it is racist to try getting communities to improve themselves and overcome challenges instead of perpetuating the entitlement mindset and status quo. Better to keep them behaving the same as always, hands out awaiting the government support that does nothing to change the current cycle. Trying to get more beneficial assistance instead of the same minimally effective assistance that just perpetuates eating and reproduction as opposed to pushing them to change their lifestyle is racist. All because what you hear is that sparty and I have an issue blacks, which is not what is being suggested, implied, or true in any manner.

Just because we believe there is a need for a shift in cultural mindsets for there to be effective change does not equate to racism. The need for better parenting and getting underprivileged to better themselves is not racism, for those are specific to only one race, the Human race. You on the other hand continue making it a black race issue with zero comprehension how every race has communities needing to change their mindset, because your vision is too narrow when looking at the problems shared by all races.

I used to think you were racist after reading your rants on "the ghetto blacks" here, but I realized later you are well intentioned, just a little misguided.

 

[zyxt9]

I used to think you were racist after reading your rants on "the ghetto blacks" here, but I realized later you are well intentioned, just a little misguided.

That's fair, and appreciated... though I'm keeping an even head based on the old "road to hell is paved with good intentions" thing. Not that u meant it that way of course!

 

[Gulo Blue]

Absolutely agree that AA is better than doing nothing, and Sparty isn't suggesting that either. And they don't have to cut off AA completely before changing direction, but it can be reduced while other factors are worked on harder.

No, I think this is altogether different from Spartanmack's take on it. I think 118 spots in a class of 6200 is reasonable, and if you disagree and want to roll back that number, that's a fair conversation. To me, it matters how much of a boost that 118th person is getting because too much of a boost does set people up to fail. But mack is just against it. period. I think you should find balance between the two motivations; AA is a form of discrimination and should be minimized or eliminated if possible is one motivation and the other is the practical ramification, ending it drops minority participation to whatever level which doesn't achieve an acceptable level of diversity. That view doesn't seem to contradict yours. If there's disagreement, it's mostly a matter of degree.

 

[Spartanmack]

He also has cause and effect backward here. Because he's stupid. And racist.

right, being anti-discrimination is racist. Good one. Making the same false and stupid accusation over and over doesn't make it right, but that's the libtard way - when you have no substance and no facts to back up you up, yell the loudest and call people names.

 

[Spartanmack]

No, I think this is altogether different from Spartanmack's take on it. I think 118 spots in a class of 6200 is reasonable, and if you disagree and want to roll back that number, that's a fair conversation. To me, it matters how much of a boost that 118th person is getting because too much of a boost does set people up to fail. But mack is just against it. period. I think you should find balance between the two motivations; AA is a form of discrimination and should be minimized or eliminated if possible is one motivation and the other is the practical ramification, ending it drops minority participation to whatever level which doesn't achieve an acceptable level of diversity. That view doesn't seem to contradict yours. If there's disagreement, it's mostly a matter of degree.

The idea that you think this is about 118 spots or that I'm just against AA and don't care about the bigger issue clearly shows that 1) you don't get it and 2) you're not paying attention or you have a problem with reading comprehension. I'm against AA because it's discriminatory, is completely ineffective and it doesn't even come close to addressing the bigger issue of education reform. And every one of your arguments for AA is laughably weak.

If you think 118 spots is the goal of AA or that it even comes close to fixing the problem then you're just another libtard throwing minorities a bone to appease them so you can feel good about yourself and not take on the real tough fixes.

If AA as a temporary fix as you say, it's not even close to effective as that either. You have repeatedly said taking a group that represents 12% of the population from 4.5% to 6.1% of the incoming freshman class is a big deal - it's not and the idea you think it is is an insult to them. Minorities are underrepresented by almost 5x that number. And it's not because they're being discriminated against so implementing a discriminatory fix is pure hypocrisy.

You also said it doesn't create entitlements or disincentives to achieve and better yourself and that it only helps underserved minorities. Take a look at Brooke Kimbrough, the poster child of AA in the state of Michigan and tell me she's a victim of the system.

Also, if like you say, a qualified non-minority applicant should be satisfied with their second choice school, why is that school not also good enough for the minority candidate unqualified for the 1st school? Particularly when your "fix" isn't even close to a fix.

Again, I'm against AA because it is discrimination and the only thing it comes close to fixing is your white liberal guilt. As for your vailed and michdoosh's overt accusation that I'm a bigot is a cop out. You don't know me or anything about me or the philanthropies I support financially and/or with my time.

 

[Spartanmack]

He also has cause and effect backward here. Because he's stupid. And racist.

another unsubstantiated hit and run insult. fail. you are one pathetic loser.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The idea that you think this is about 118 spots or that I'm just against AA and don't care about the bigger issue clearly shows that 1) you don't get it and 2) you're not paying attention or you have a problem with reading comprehension. I'm against AA because it's discriminatory, is completely ineffective and it doesn't even come close to addressing the bigger issue of education reform. And every one of your arguments for AA is laughably weak.

If you think 118 spots is the goal of AA or that it even comes close to fixing the problem then you're just another libtard throwing minorities a bone to appease them so you can feel good about yourself and not take on the real tough fixes.

If AA as a temporary fix as you say, it's not even close to effective as that either. You have repeatedly said taking a group that represents 12% of the population from 4.5% to 6.1% of the incoming freshman class is a big deal - it's not and the idea you think it is is an insult to them. Minorities are underrepresented by almost 5x that number. And it's not because they're being discriminated against so implementing a discriminatory fix is pure hypocrisy.

You also said it doesn't create entitlements or disincentives to achieve and better yourself and that it only helps underserved minorities. Take a look at Brooke Kimbrough, the poster child of AA in the state of Michigan and tell me she's a victim of the system.

Also, if like you say, a qualified non-minority applicant should be satisfied with their second choice school, why is that school not also good enough for the minority candidate unqualified for the 1st school? Particularly when your "fix" isn't even close to a fix.

Again, I'm against AA because it is discrimination and the only thing it comes close to fixing is your white liberal guilt. As for your vailed and michdoosh's overt accusation that I'm a bigot is a cop out. You don't know me or anything about me or the philanthropies I support financially and/or with my time.

I think you're combining things I've said with thing others have said. When did I say anything about second choice schools? When did I say AA was or wasn't a temporary fix?

You've got a lot wrong in this post.

 

[Gulo Blue]

When did I say AA "only helps underserved minorities"?
When did I mention entitlements?

 

[Spartanmack]

I think you're combining things I've said with thing others have said. When did I say AA was or wasn't a temporary fix?

Edit - I misread "wasn't" as "was"

You didn't, and I acknowledged that you said it was a temporary fix. I was making the point that it was a failure as even a temporary solution.

 

[Spartanmack]

When did I say AA "only helps underserved minorities"?
When did I mention entitlements?

This is what I said:

...You also said it doesn't create entitlements or disincentives to achieve and better yourself and that it only helps underserved minorities.

By that I meant, you indicated it only helps and in no way harms minorities, not that it helps minorities exclusively.

This was in reference to my earlier comment about how AA is a contributing factor to the entitlement mentality that is perpetuating the very problems entitlements are designed to fix. Your response to that is right here:

No. We have not continuously lowered the standards, passing them along, discouraging them from bettering themselves. Nobody ever took education reform less seriously because there were an extra 112 black students at Michigan. That's absurd. It gets in the way of nothing. There is no education reform that has ever been prevented because we all felt like things were good enough. That's crazy talk.

As for the "second choice schools" argument, it looks like I attributed one of michturds illogical statement to you. Apologies for that, but if I may borrow a phrase, it seems like the shoe probably fits. Perhaps the post should have referenced the arguments to pro-AA folks collectively, not just you.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I didn't say any of those things. Even after you re-explain, I didn't say anything about AA being temporary, I never said AA doesn't harm minorities in any way.

 

[Sbee]

This is what I said:



By that I meant, you indicated it only helps and in no way harms minorities, not that it helps minorities exclusively.

This was in reference to my earlier comment about how AA is a contributing factor to the entitlement mentality that is perpetuating the very problems entitlements are designed to fix. Your response to that is right here:



As for the "second choice schools" argument, it looks like I attributed one of michturds illogical statement to you. Apologies for that, but if I may borrow a phrase, it seems like the shoe probably fits. Perhaps the post should have referenced the arguments to pro-AA folks collectively, not just you.

entitlement mentality? does that sentiment permeate to Bechtel, Carlyle, GE, Exxon, Pfizer, etc?

everyone has their hands out up and down the socioeconomic ladder, it's just easy to point at the poor and less fortunate since they can't afford lobbyist.

as for AA, good intentions but it doesn't help who it needs to. I have a lot of friends at work who are minorities, some are making 300-500k and sending their kids to elite private schools like Latin or Francis Parker in Chicago, are those the people we need to help?

the overall goal is social mobility, we're lower than old school caste european countries in that regard. good intentions but the policy needs work

 

[Gulo Blue]

You know what's really funny? It's that Spartanmack starts that post by challenging my reading comprehension before getting that list of things wrong about what I've said.

 

[Spartanmack]

entitlement mentality? does that sentiment permeate to Bechtel, Carlyle, GE, Exxon, Pfizer, etc?

everyone has their hands out up and down the socioeconomic ladder, it's just easy to point at the poor and less fortunate since they can't afford lobbyist.

as for AA, good intentions but it doesn't help who it needs to. I have a lot of friends at work who are minorities, some are making 300-500k and sending their kids to elite private schools like Latin or Francis Parker in Chicago, are those the people we need to help?

the overall goal is social mobility, we're lower than old school caste european countries in that regard. good intentions but the policy needs work

Although it's completely off topic and irrelevant to the AA discussion, yes my disdain to entitlements does extend to corporate welfare. In fact, I'm far more opposed to it than I am to AA. I was also completely against the bail out of GM and the big banks. But again, it's not relevant to the discussion at hand. Maybe you were exaggerating but social mobility in America today is far greater than it was in the European caste system. That's just flat out wrong.

I do agree however, that if AA is to come back, it should be means tested or like others here have suggested, based on underperforming school districts rather than merely race.

 

[Spartanmack]

I didn't say any of those things. Even after you re-explain, I didn't say anything about AA being temporary, I never said AA doesn't harm minorities in any way.

You know what's really funny? It's that Spartanmack starts that post by challenging my reading comprehension before getting that list of things wrong about what I've said.

Ha - you said ALL of those things. First you challenge me with "when did I say AA wasn't temporary" and I acknowledge that you said the opposite. Now you're saying you never said anything about AA being temporary. You clearly did right here:

Bingo. It's not a good thing out of context. It's inherently unfair...it's one place we can push in the other direction until we figure out how to deal with the actual problems. To date, we haven't. The end-goal should be the end of AA, but not until we fix other inequalities.

And here:

Real reform 1st. Nobody's fighting you on that. Deliver real reform, and I'll be against AA....

Or is it your point that you didn't use the word "temporary"?

Commence backpedaling/hairsplitting now...

 

[Gulo Blue]

Ha - you said ALL of those things. First you challenge me with "when did I say AA wasn't temporary" and I acknowledge that you said the opposite. Now you're saying you never said anything about AA being temporary. You clearly did right here:

And here:

Or is it your point that you didn't use the word "temporary"?

You got that quote wrong. I said "When did I say AA was or wasn't a temporary fix?"

Saying the goal should be to get rid of it isn't the same thing. I hope we reach a place where we don't need it anymore. That's not the same as saying it is temporary. Saying it's temporary adds an assumption that it will happen and ignores the condition I put on it. Not a point I'd usually make on its own, but as long as I'm listing that I didn't mention entitlement, 2nd choice schools, or that AA only helps underrepresented minorities, I figured I'd add it to the list.

 

[Spartanmack]

No. This is all just splitting hairs. In the context of the conversation where we both already advocated for real substantive reform, paraphrasing your view of AA as a temporary (i.e. not permanent) solution does not add any assumption that your conditions are ignored. The terms "temporary", "stop-gap", "not permanent" can all mean the same thing. Any assumption about what they imply comes from you, not the term. You may not have said the word entitlement or that it's only helpful but you argued against my assertion that it contributes to the entitlement mentality and that the harm it does as part of that is significant so if the shoe fits...

This is devolving into another circular argument about semantics - par for the course with you and michtool. The facts are unchanged by any of your bleeding heart liberal blather. AA is discriminatory and ineffective and should not be part of any admissions policy. The people of Michigan voted democratically and overwhelmingly against it. The constituionality of the law was challenged all the way to the nation's highest court and was upheld 6-2 - hardly along partisan lines. That's good for democracy and acknowledging that doesn't make one a racist. Only idiots who make stupid assumptions about another person's view draw such conclusions.