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

[PaintMyHouse]

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

No statement in USMB has ever been more stupid that that. So when the racial discrimaintion is against Blacks it's racism. And when the racial discrimination is against Whites it's not, right ? You just confessed to being a balfaced RACIST, plain and simple.

He's correct, you're a damn old fool.

And stop beating on Condi Rice and Ben Carson, it's not nice.

Carson and Condi have real skills, the Obama's not so much

That must be why he holds the highest office in the land...

Yeah you made my point.

Somehow he got through law school without learning judicial review

Yes, we know that only GOP token ******* have skills...

 

[mudwhistle]

a friend of mine just benefited from affirmative action...she got into a black university

Affirmative Action officially only covers blacks. Whites don't fall under it's statutes as far as I know. Somebody is going to have to prove to me otherwise.

 

[Wildman]

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

........................................

 

[protectionist]

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

No statement in USMB has ever been more stupid that that. So when the racial discrimaintion is against Blacks it's racism. And when the racial discrimination is against Whites it's not, right ? You just confessed to being a balfaced RACIST, plain and simple.

He's correct, you're a damn old fool.

And stop beating on Condi Rice and Ben Carson, it's not nice.

Of course he's not correct, He's a denialist hypocrite, and so are you. Affirmative action denies people opportunities on the basis of their race. Pure, unadulterated RACISM, and you support it, you racist clown.

Years ago, in my graduate school 17 non-Blacks (including me) were denied assistantships, while 8 were granted to the only 8 Blacks who applied (who also happened to be the lowest 8 academically). Most of thos enon-Blacks were forced to drop out, changing the course of their entire lives.

If anyone felt that Blacks were economically deprived, and wanted to rectify that, they could have AA on the basis of economic class (financial need). The you would not have wealthy Blacks getting advantages ahead of poor whites. AA would be OK if it addressed poverty, not race.

As for past racism, it is absurd to discriminate against people in 2015, for things that happened prior to 1964. especially when the 2015 Blacks have not been victims of the pre-1964 racism, as all of those blacks are no eeither deceased or past retirement age, and out of the workforce.

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

 

[protectionist]

a friend of mine just benefited from affirmative action...she got into a black university

Affirmative Action officially only covers blacks. Whites don't fall under it's statutes as far as I know. Somebody is going to have to prove to me otherwise.

Whites fall under it in one way >> the VICTIMS.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

a friend of mine just benefited from affirmative action...she got into a black university

Affirmative Action officially only covers blacks. Whites don't fall under it's statutes as far as I know. Somebody is going to have to prove to me otherwise.

"United States
Main article: Affirmative action in the United States
The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process and, in 1967, the concept was expanded to include sex. Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[66]"
Affirmative action - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Wildman]

...Affirmative Action...

is why we have an illegal Kenyan alien in our once great WHITE House !

 

[protectionist]

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

No statement in USMB has ever been more stupid that that. So when the racial discrimaintion is against Blacks it's racism. And when the racial discrimination is against Whites it's not, right ? You just confessed to being a balfaced RACIST, plain and simple.

Against whites? Then how come AA benefits WHITE women the most?

It doesn't. That is another run-of-the-mill FALSE, liberal, talking point. Actually, for evey one woman benefitting from AA, 1000 are victimized by it, as the wives, daughters, mothers, etc of AA-victimized males.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...Affirmative Action...

is why we have an illegal Kenyan alien in our once great WHITE House !

White House for whities only eh Wildman?

 

[syonidv]

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...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

I think it's rather amazing that society's attitudes about blacks have managed to change as much as they have despite the persistent racism of Affirmative Action.

But why don't we agree on something: If it's no longer necessary, let's get rid of it.

The attitudes changed because of AA, and its time is coming to an end.

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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

No statement in USMB has ever been more stupid that that. So when the racial discrimaintion is against Blacks it's racism. And when the racial discrimination is against Whites it's not, right ? You just confessed to being a balfaced RACIST, plain and simple.

Against whites? Then how come AA benefits WHITE women the most?

It doesn't. That is another run-of-the-mill FALSE, liberal, talking point. Actually, for evey one woman benefitting from AA, 1000 are victimized by it, as the wives, daughters, mothers, etc of AA-victimized males.

Poor poor ******, he's had it so rough here while those stupid ******* got all the breaks...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

I think it's rather amazing that society's attitudes about blacks have managed to change as much as they have despite the persistent racism of Affirmative Action.

But why don't we agree on something: If it's no longer necessary, let's get rid of it.

The attitudes changed because of AA, and its time is coming to an end.

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

 

[Wildman]

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

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

 

[protectionist]

a friend of mine just benefited from affirmative action...she got into a black university

Affirmative Action officially only covers blacks. Whites don't fall under it's statutes as far as I know. Somebody is going to have to prove to me otherwise.

"United States
Main article: Affirmative action in the United States
The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process and, in 1967, the concept was expanded to include sex. Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[66]"
Affirmative action - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

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)

And no, it does NOT "ensure that applicants are employed" , it ensures that (White) applicants are NOT employed.

And NO, it does NOT "ensure that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color". How totally absurd that is when AA works first by handing you a questionnaire to fill out checking boxes about what race you are.

 

[protectionist]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

I think it's rather amazing that society's attitudes about blacks have managed to change as much as they have despite the persistent racism of Affirmative Action.

But why don't we agree on something: If it's no longer necessary, let's get rid of it.

The attitudes changed because of AA, and its time is coming to an end.

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

With AA, Blackey approves only when Blackey is getting all the breaks. That has and never will change for the overtly racist and xenophobic morons here, who racistly support the racism of affirmative action.

 

[syonidv]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

I think it's rather amazing that society's attitudes about blacks have managed to change as much as they have despite the persistent racism of Affirmative Action.

But why don't we agree on something: If it's no longer necessary, let's get rid of it.

The attitudes changed because of AA, and its time is coming to an end.

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 ****** approves only when ****** 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 "******" and stringing together asterisks?

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

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

I think it's rather amazing that society's attitudes about blacks have managed to change as much as they have despite the persistent racism of Affirmative Action.

But why don't we agree on something: If it's no longer necessary, let's get rid of it.

The attitudes changed because of AA, and its time is coming to an end.

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.

Typical:

The Diversity Myth
"Thiel is the co-author, with David O. Sacks, and with a foreword by the late Emory University historian Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, of the 1995 book [94] The Diversity Myth: 'Multiculturalism' and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford, published by The Independent Institute. The book is critical of political correctness in higher education and the consequent dilution of academic rigor. It "drew a sharp rebuttal from then-Stanford Provost (and later President George W. Bush's National Security Advisor) Condoleezza Rice."[citation needed] According to his 2011 New Yorker profile, Thiel has backtracked somewhat from his assertions in the book:

'All of the identity-related things are in my mind much more nuanced,' he said. 'I think there is a gay experience, I think there is a black experience, I think there is a woman’s experience that is meaningfully different. I also think there was a tendency to exaggerate it and turn it into an ideological category.' But his reaction against political correctness, he said, was just as narrowly ideological.[19]"
Peter Thiel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[mudwhistle]

I think this thread started off going down the wrong path.
Does anyone think that the Obamas 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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The attitudes changed because of AA, and its time is coming to an end.

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 ****** approves only when ****** 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 "******" 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 ****** bitching about all the breaks going to the ******* which makes ****** angry so we should do away with it, even though it worked and still does.

 

[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.