Hate speech is okay and should be protected. Fight speech isn't. The line is blurry with protest. Because if you were like "I hate affirmitive actions" and then some ones like "why? just because I'll get a better chance?" and then the two exchange remarks, what they doesn't matter, because they're probablly trying to provoke each other to take the first swing. I.e. you can talk about hating white people all you want, but if you walk to someone and are like "hey cracker" and he punches you in the face, you can't be like "hey, i have free speech" and get away with it. I think thats what they're doing here.

now i'm in the mood for cookies

The line is very blurry but under our Freedom of Speech it would be ok to walk up to a white guy and say "Hey Cracker" or "I hate white people." If he punches you that's your bad. I don't think you could try the battery because you instigated it in a sense, but you do have that right to say it. It all depends on how good your lawyer is as well and that's another topic altogether.

Your Freedom of Speech protects the unpopular opinion, "hate speech" and even ill will.

Now if you walk up to someone and say "I'm going to kill you cracker" that is no longer protected. You have turned an idea into an act or an assault.

Quote of the week. LOL.

Oh come on lifesaver.

Surely they've got some spare change in the cup holders of their BMW X5's or Escalades.

FWIW, i don't see anything wrong with this protest. In the end, it causes people to think about the inequities of an affirmative action/race-based admissions system.

Kitso
KS 361 cookies i'd have bought :D

you shoulda had a black person buy them for you. they only had to pay a quarter.

Re: SMU shuts down bake sale w/ race-based prices
 

Admittedly, I am not up to speed on all the minutae of Affirmative Action. But is the above quote correct? I thought that it was based on race. If not just race, then what is it based on in addition to race?

Thanks!

Re: Re: SMU shuts down bake sale w/ race-based prices
 

I think that gender plays a role in it as well. I had a professor tell us that there was an affirmitive action policy at my school that benefited males since more females apply. he said that that males didn't have as high of standards to get accepted as females did. not exactly sure if that is true though...

Re: Re: SMU shuts down bake sale w/ race-based prices
 

For some colleges, you get admission "points" for the following as well (some like sports, are worth more points than race.)

~ Gender
~ Economic background
~ Familial ties (are your parents/grandparents/etc. alumni?)
~ Playing Sports (cha ching! )

Sure, but how many commentaries have been able to get past the school newspaper, while this made it into the Associated Press and GreekChat...while commentaries may work, this did it's job as we are proving

I'd love to see the inequities. Point them out to me.

There might be legitimate inequities if the universities were required by law to take the most qualified applicants regardless of race, gender, or other factors. But they're not. They can pick and choose students by pretty much whatever criteria they want. If the University of Texas stops using grades and SAT scores as application criteria and decides to rely solely on interviews, they can do that. Or if they want to stop using grades and test scores and instead make the application criteria be who can bench press the most, they could probably do that too.

People whining about how affirmative action is "unfair" sound like the 8-year-olds who cry about how they didn't get invited to the popular kid's birthday party. "Wah wah, he invited Bobby instead of me! I'm so much cooler than Bobby! It's not fair! I would have gotten him a better present than Bobby got him too!"

There are many things that college use as admissions criteria to ensure a diverse student background, but since they aren't filed under the label "affirmative action" nobody questions them. As stated, gender is one that's somewhat associated with it, and these days men are actually on the receiving end of AA more often then women when it comes to college acceptances. Most schools --tech schools excluded-- have more women at them than men. This can range from a 51%/49% imbalance (which can be pretty big when you're at a school with 40,000 students like me :D) to the much higher 60%/40% imbalances and beyond. Many schools are going out of their way to correct this by using "affirmative action" on white males. And we all thought we'd never see the day when that happened . . . . ;)

Other factors that can affect your acceptance and are determined in an "affirmative action-like" way include geographic background (many schools will only accept a certain amount of students from one high school/city/state), majors (if half the candidate pool for one year is English majors, you can bet that the non-English majors have a better shot at getting in), talents (if the school band is weak in trumpets, trumpet players have a better shot at getting in than non-musicians or the flutists), and general life experiences -- someone who's gone to do volunteer work in Costa Rica or travelled around the country on a dance team or speaks 5 languages is going to have a better shot at getting in than the kid who is just like every other applicant. It's funny, though -- nobody complains about these things. They're an accepted part of the criteria used. But as soon as race becomes an issue people start hollering.

well put sugar&spice!

It is still hypocritical for points to be assigned to groups based on their race/skin color helping them gain admittance, then once they are admitted they want people to see past their skin color and see them as the same as everyone else.

You want to use factors such as economic background, legacy status fine. But if you use race, don't be surprised when races that aren't getting points get upset.

For a society that wants to see past color, we sure do seem to be awfully concerned with it.

Kitso
KS 361

Why should economic background and legacy status (or the aforementioned other points like geography) be different than race?

Plus I never said that I want people to see people of color as "the same as everyone else." Do I want them to be treated as equals? Of course. But "equal" and "the same" are two totally different things. Often they're admitted to the school precisely because they can bring more diverse viewpoints and learning experiences to the fold, so why should they shut up and pretend that they don't have any diverse viewpoints or experiences and that they're just like "the rest of us" once they get here?

There are way too many people who completely miss the point of having a diverse student body. It's not just to help "them" (those who are admitted in part because of non-academic factors like race, geography, major or life experience) get ahead in the world -- it's to help the rest of us expand our worldview. A diverse student body benefits EVERYONE, not just people of color.

Actually while you are on your soapbox, I'd like to tell you that you are absolutely WRONG on this statement. This has been proven over and over and most supporters of affirmative action do not bring it up as much anymore since research from UCLA has shown that having a "diverse" viewpoint literally has no effect on other students.

-Rudey
--Thanks...play again.