So i guess two wrongs do make a right.

i don't know about that, but three rights make a left

Nope. But nobody's has proven to me that Affirmative Action is completely wrong.

I've lost potential jobs because of Affirmative Action -- but I'm smart enough to realize that in the past my industry was almost entirely dominated by white males.

I won't be bitter that I have (and was told as much in plain English) been the victim of a process to right what I believe to have been an injustice.

I haven't lost jobs, and I don't think I'd be overly bitter, I just think its the wrong thing to do.

Not all minorities are considered "minorities" for AA. Asians (at least in California) do not benefit from Affirmative Action for school admissions.

Question
 

I think we live in a much more selfish society than we use to be.

Folks saying here and there that if so-in-so got into school for piss poor reasons, then blah, blah, blah.

How come you all give a rat's ass about who got into to wherever, however?

Like my mom said to me when I looked on her plate, "keep your eyes on your own plate!!!"

I don't want to hear about what you think fair. I just want to know why folks here on GC even care who gets into college? How does someone's admission to any SCHOOL affect Y-O-U?

I would think that people appying to schools and programs with very limited acceptances would have an argument.

Now I'll preface this by saying I generally like/respect what AKA says. I hope this is sarcasm. However, if not, this is a terrible post. Most things that people like you, AKA, would say I should care about, don't have much to do with me. Hunger, poverty, insurance, none of these things has anything to do with my family. I guess I should care less then, no? Violent crime doesn't really happen here, considering I live in a safe area, so I guess I should shut such things out, yeah? When something unjust or wrong is happening, why is it just those directly impacted by it who should speak against it?

I watched the hearings as well. I was amazed that he was confirmed as well, although it was likely for an entirely different set of reasons.

Regardless of that, his statement as to the 14th has truth and merit.

Shiner-

You know, I do have to appreciate your honesty. :)

And I honestly, fail to understand what you are talking about... Really.

I can basically interpret your statements several ways: 1) Are you saying that these horrific "things" (hunger, poverty, insurance, etc.) happen to the systematically and systemically downtroddened? Would that not be a stereotype then?

or are you saying:

2) People in a "pluralistic society" and a "republic" should never be selected to be a part of anything. Criteria for selection should purely be driven by merit--e.g. the best man for the job, etc... Anyway else is uncivilized...

But it is "that one" school--like I will only apply to Michigan because they can barely hang on at #2 in the BCS... ;)

Or, I am only applying to SEC schools because they have the better football teams...

But what's up with the ACC? Wake Forest beat that ass...

Then look at Boise St. for the WAC...

No AKA, I'm saying that you saying people like us shouldnt care about who gets admitted where how, is a ridiculous statement. If this is true, then why should I care about anything that doesn't directly affect me?

How come my statements must be ridiculous to you?

Do you really think someone else's university admission DIRECTLY affects Y-O-U?

If you do, then what DIRECT circumstances have caused Y-O-U to think that way?

Shinerbock is right. It doesn't have to affect him directly for him to have an opinion and concern.

Following your logic none of us should support affirmative action initiatives, EEOC, or social welfare programs if we've never knowingly been at the receiving end of discrimination or hardship based on race, class, and/or gender. Of course most of us are or have been targets for discrimination at some level based on race, class and/or gender so not being conscious of that fact doesn't erase it.

In your defense, I believe you are essentially saying that people shouldn't be so passionate about eliminating affirmative action just because a relatively small number of white people across the country claim reverse-discrimination. So unless the anti-AffAct whites can PROVE that they are one of the relatively few who have been passed up for a less qualified minority applicant, or there's evidence to suggest a high probability of that occuring, what's the issue? Afraid of the status quo crumbling and no longer being able to opportunity hoard? Whites are still the majority and there is no real threat of whites' missing out of opportunities because of the existence of affirmative action. White males are still at the top of most companies (which has some benefit for white women just like gender-based affirmative action does) and most work environments and promotion opportunities across the country are almost exclusively white.

And to be honest, I'm not really "passionate" about it. I think its wrong, but it doesn't keep me up at night. That being said, maybe it could one day.

I believe he is saying that it is ridiculous...because one could definitely infer from your latest posts that none of us should really care about anything that doesn't directly affect us. Doing away with or putting into practice gay marriage and abortion doesn't really affect me at all......but it doesn't mean that i'm not entitled to an opinion or concern on the matter.

Well, you know what "they" say about opinions... I am not asking for an opinion, I really want to know what his thinking, the epistemology of his thinking, how come he really thinks that. I could care less about his opinion.

I fail to see how I came to that logic. That is your logic and that makes you putting words into my mouth. I am not asking why, I am asking how. End result. Based on what I am seeing in health care disparities alone dictates in the 3 states I have resided in suggests the outcomes of ending affirmative action or choices to attend school... Right now, the way I see it, the end of affirmative action causes massive increases in poor health outcomes. The rate of occurrence is within 2 years. All historical ethnic and immigrant groups regardless of income status. Also, holds true for disabled persons.

I think I am saying something different. I think people in the majority, mainly whites and some Asians, should be passionate about ending Affirmative Action.

Really, this issue all boils down to money and who is making it and why.

As long as little Black boys are running in those games, then that is why they need to be admitted. Oh the fear that these same kids desire to become a physician or engineer to not only better themselves but also their communities...

The look are the misperceived "balance of power". Let's call it like we see it. Most folks who ending college admissions affirmative action would affect are Hispanic/Latinos. African Americans and Native Americans are a non-factor (<1%-3%) in some states... And you may as well forget the disabled in those numbers.

Folks are not really as to why "they" dislike Affirmative Action.

Well, the repercussions are not giving a dayum about a sector or population that becomes a public health hazard and we all, humanity, have to "clean it up".

The ravages of Hurricane Katrina tells you what happens when you actively fail to give ALL people a chance...

What does this have to do with anything?

If you're asking for shinerbock to articulate a sophisticated methodology in determining why he feels affirmative action should be eliminated, he probably will not be able to do so. When people oppose affirmative action for the reasons that he does, it isn't about some measurable outcome or socially significant negative effect of affirmative action.

Then again, a less presumptuous approach to epistemology is similar to the standpoint epistemology that Patricia Hill Collins and others wrote about. Everyone comes with a particular standpoint that shapes their perceptions, opinions, research design, and so forth. He told you his opinion which translates to how he came to know what he knows (epistemology) within the context of what he knows. You don't agree with his opinion and you never will, but you can't dismiss it as unsubstantiated fluff when he has clearly said why he thinks what he thinks.




No one is trying to put words in your mouth. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and help you to communicate your points.

It reads like you are saying something similar to what I'm saying but in a different, perhaps less coherent, way. Yes, majority groups should be in opposition if it threatens their opportunity hoarding--if they don't come from a utilitarian framework. No, majority groups should not be in opposition just because of some assumed and socially insignificant negative outcome (if they can't explain WHY AffAct should be done away with, it shouldn't be done away with and opponents should go on about their business because why a black man got into some university typically will not affect them anyway).

I saw no indication that you were asking me for my rationale in deciding affirmative action should end. If thats what you want, say so, and after this semester ends I'll be glad to respond...

I don't know but it looks like she's claiming that you, macallan, and I have misinterpreted what she meant.

I have not seen any satisfactory articulation as to why Shinerbock THINKS AffAct should be eliminated. I could care less about how he feels about this subject and I probably already know his feelings as well as a few other folks here.

My career is about facts and statistics. That is my mindset and my modus operandi at all times. I need histories and "not what I feel about it today" or "opinions on it". What I deal with in my line of work is exactly what I can see. So, it is very difficult for me to make any inferences unless I am able to experimentally test it out based on a hypothesis.

With that being said, I have not been given facts or stats. It is not my opinion when I say things I do say unless I say IMHO or IMO. Period. Somebody has published and written this information on an US or state government agency website or it is trade literature...

No one has given me any trade literature, or US or state government agency website on the after-affects of ending Affirmative Action. At least for California, these sites should have 10 year data...

I do have the Washington State Health Outcomes data for my state. Almost all underrepresented minority groups have the worst health outcome for every measurement taken. These data are piss-poor for some groups in this state...

So my questions are "why are there huge health disparities" in the United States generally? What causes them to be so poor? The National Institutes of Health Roadmap Initiatives are requesting various research groups address this issue. One of the items they suggest as well as the University of Washington's School of Medicine website lists is that if there were more people of color as physicians to treat their communities, there would be less health disparities...

Is that true? I dunno? But let us look at the data to see... Well, if our kids are discouraged from even applying for undergraduate work, how will they be able to move ahead for graduate/professional work? Sure, there will be the <0.025% kid that succeeds every 5-10 years, but in the absence of a concerted effort among faculty and staff, there will be no one to shore up these kids as they matriculate...


Thank you and I appreciate your insight and compassion. As much as folks love to share their "opinions" with us, like I said, what are the facts? We can revolve around this iceberg's tip never going in depth to the core of the issue or we could try to learn something from each other. I prefer the latter. But hey, what do I know? I am just some hack trying free minds here. I have been teaching college student close to 12 years now and I like to think that I know how to get them to learn complex issues... I guess I am too much into the Socratic Method...

Shinerbock talks about AffAct all the time. The thread can be able orange juice for breakfast and he'll find a way to put AffAct in there. :D If you pretty much know how he and others feel about the subject then you should also know that it's not really about empirical support. There isn't any real data to support many of the cons of AffAct that such people highlight. It's mostly theoretical.

I have a similar line of work and modus operandi most of the time. However, we're talking about social phenomenon and stances on controversial social issues. There will not always be facts and statistics to support every pro and con. That's the fact of the matter.

Well what I have learned in teaching college students is that it is important to challenge them to think bigger without denying their point of view credibility since many topics aren't about a die hard right or wrong. You already know they are less capable of articulating the same as you or providing you with immediate evidence. So instead of drilling the obvious into the ground, you let them give you what they can give you in a theoretical matter which will prompt them to go home and seek the empirical support for their theory. Theory always comes first and theory is practically the same as opinion in this instance since it's all about standpoint, anyway.

Either case, I hope your students don't have a hard time understanding what you mean the way some of us did. :)

It is difficult for me to get out of it and reach to those unfamiliar with my daily concepts. When there is congestive heart failure in the left ventricular at diastole, we are no longer dealing with theory now, we are probably trying to stabilize and save someone's life...

I have no chance to "infer" anything. If I don't hear it "straight from the horse's mouth" then I have been trained to not assume anything... It is a matter of asking the "right" question. The man, Shinerbock, can choose to answer my questions or not. I can infer whatever I want. But I will never know unless I see his answer.

You and I do agree on one thing, most of these kids haven't a clue. We can either write them off as racist, ignorant, insensitive nutjobs. Or, we can walk them through "their logic" to see how they came to "their logical conclusions". For the most part, I see some of these kids having little exposure to ANYTHING worthy or meaningful. They may eventually get "there" in their lives, but then again, who knows? What I do know that what we hate the most will enter our lives most significantly... It is all a matter of time...

Now, that is one thing I know I cannot predict...

O.K.

Well perhaps you should start by asking a direct questions to those "kids" "who haven't a clue."

http://www.shutupandteach.org/suatdare.JPG

That's always a start.

Boys,

I think we are teaching a didactic course for you... Next week there will be quiz!

We are on the 2 week turn-around system here...

Welcome to GC University...

President - DSTChaos
Dean of Curriculum and Chief of GC Hospital - Dr. AKA_Monet

I think Macallan would make an excellent Football Coach... And Shinerbock an Atheletics Director...

Now we need the Registrar, Bursar and our Regents...

Thats fine.....Mack Brown makes over a million a year.....i'll take it.

I'm sad to say that it looks like it's a Yes on this proposal. Current projections say 58% yes, 42% no based on "Key Precinct Counts"

First paragraph, yes I agree with you. After the fact it doesn't matter and isn't a big deal, unless you are that person who got rejected even though you deserved that spot also.

I'm not sure about the sheet. I don't remember hearing if they did away with it. We went over it in one of my classes, and I just remember being amazed at the points you got for certain things... such as being a legacy, being an athlete, race, and all the other points they had.

(sorry, i still don't know how to multi-quote!)

But that's the thing. I know that there are minority students who worked just as hard and deserve to be there, but there are many people who will assume that. (I'm trying to argue with one of the most racist transplant-Southerner I know about this whole prop 2 thing... he is one of those people) I just thought that it would eliminate that assumption and be fair to those getting rejected because of the "quota".

Are white students ever concerned that people will assume they were admitted based on "race, class, or athletic prowess", rather than merit? If your last name is Bush, for example, do you care that everyone assumes you made it based on your family's connections?? :confused:

But sometimes, departments and/or schools sway towards one group or another because that's who applies. White women make up the majority of elementary school education majors while men (especially Asian men) seem to go for hard sciences/engineering.