You said,

“My point was that this portrayal didn't even get to the point of the issue, and thus didn't represent any sort of dissenting opinion on actual Affirmative Action policy - their example did NOT, in my opinion, fit what they were trying to fight.”

I disagree. The racial based discounts for cookies is a good picture of the premium given to certain races in AA programs. When points are added toward a required total for program entry based upon race, in a way, entry to that program has been discounted for those individuals. Special treatment based upon race is the issue. It may not be a perfect picture, but it works.

You called the sponsors retards and idiots because of their belief that the discounted cookies represented what takes place through Affirmative Action. To me, that is stating a position on their belief.

You also said that AA programs generally suck in many ways. We seem to agree on that.

smu cookies
 

A really great friend of mine is at SMU now.... naturally, I had to email her the story, as she conveniently forgot to mention it ;) I personally thought it was really funny.... and I mean, come on... it was. I just wonder who actually bought the cookies.... I mean... really.

I believe a "colorblind" system based on ability only would be the ideal. However, realistically speaking, it ain't gonna happen. Why? Because when employers come across applications from LaKeisha Jackson and John Smith, even if the credentials are identical, who do you think they will call for an interview? All Affirmative Action does is LEGALLY give both an equal shot. It does not say GIVE LAKEISHA THE JOB.

Some one please find hard demographics where AA has significantly lowered the numbers of whites in positions of power. This is why I think AA sucks because it simply doesn't work. There is always going to be discrimination, all AA does is force people to be more covert about it.

However, the CONCEPT is necessary in today's society because equality of OPPORTUNITY is something we are still trying to acheive, believe it or not.

I am against all forms of AA. Affirmative action and alcoholics anonymous.

Right. I've seen the self-segregation thing happening at my school (which is far from diverse anyway) and I think part of it is due to affirmative action policies. Like I said before, there are plenty of white/Asian students who think that the only reason Hispanics and blacks are here is because of their race, thus they are stupid, thus they are not worth talking to. So beyond the self-segregation that takes place in less racially-charged situations, there is a lot of race-based hostility at this school flowing both ways.

That's why I think that when affirmative action policies are implemented they have to be used carefully. But I also think that there are plenty of people out there that need to be more open-minded about AA policies.

Diversity isn't helpful in cases where self-segregation is the norm. But I think that that is another whole battle entirely.

And to back that up, this article was published in the Wall Street Journal about a month ago:

By David Wessel -- Wall Street Journal - Sept 4, 2003
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1...910800,00.html

Two young high-school graduates with similar job histories and
demeanors apply in person for jobs as waiters, warehousemen or other
low-skilled positions advertised in a Milwaukee newspaper. One man is
white and admits to having served 18 months in prison for possession
of cocaine with intent to sell. The other is black and hasn't any
criminal record.

Which man is more likely to get called back?

It is surprisingly close. In a carefully crafted experiment in which
college students posing as job applicants visited 350 employers, the
white ex-con was called back 17% of the time and the crime-free black
applicant 14%. The disadvantage carried by a young black man applying
for a job as a dishwasher or a driver is equivalent to forcing a white
man to carry an 18-month prison record on his back.

Many white Americans think racial discrimination is no longer much of
a problem. Many blacks think otherwise. In offices populated with
college graduates, white men quietly confide to other white men that
affirmative action makes it tough for a white guy to get ahead these
days. (If that's so, a black colleague once asked me, how come there
aren't more blacks in the corporate hierarchy?)

A recent Gallup poll asked: "Do you feel that racial minorities in
this country have equal job opportunities as whites, or not?" Among
whites, the answer was 55% yes and 43% no; the rest were undecided.
Among blacks, the answer was 17% yes and 81% no.

The Milwaukee and other experiments, though plagued by the
shortcomings of research that relies on pretense to explain how people
behave, offer evidence that discrimination remains a potent factor in
the economic lives of black Americans.

"In these low-wage, entry-level markets, race remains a huge barrier.
Affirmative-action pressures aren't operating here," says Devah Pager,
the sociologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., who
conducted the Milwaukee experiment and recently won the American
Sociological Association's prize for the year's best doctoral
dissertation. "Employers don't spend a lot of time screening
applicants. They want a quick signal whether the applicant seems
suitable. Stereotypes among young black men remain so prevalent and so
strong that race continues to serve as a major signal of
characteristics of which employers are wary."

In a similar experiment that got some attention last year, economists
Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil
Mullainathan of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology responded in
writing to help- wanted ads in Chicago and Boston, using names likely
to be identified by employers as white or African-American. Applicants
named Greg Kelly or Emily Walsh were 50% more likely to get called for
interviews than those named Jamal Jackson or Lakisha Washington, names
far more common among African-Americans. Putting a white-sounding name
on an application, they found, is worth as much as an extra eight
years of work experience.

These academic experiments gauge the degree of discrimination, not
just its existence. Both suggest that a blemish on a black person's
resume does far more harm than it does to a white job seeker and that
an embellishment does far less good.

In the Milwaukee experiment, Ms. Pager dispatched white and black men
with and without prison records to job interviews. Whites without drug
busts on their applications did best; blacks with drug busts did
worst. No surprise there. But this was a surprise: Acknowledging a
prison record cut a white man's chances of getting called back by
half, while cutting a black man's already-slimmer chances by a much
larger two- thirds.

"Employers, already reluctant to hire blacks, are even more wary of
blacks with proven criminal involvement," Ms. Pager says. "These
testers were bright, articulate college students with effective styles
of self- presentation. The cursory review of entry-level applicants,
however, leaves little room for these qualities to be noticed." This
is a big deal given that nearly 17% of all black American men have
served some time, and the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics
projects that, at current rates, 30% of black boys who turn 12 this
year will spend time in jail in their lifetimes.

In the Boston and Chicago experiment, researchers tweaked some resumes
to make them more appealing to employers. They added a year of work
experience, some military experience, fewer periods for which no job
was listed, computer skills and the like. This paid off for whites:
Those with better resumes were called back for interviews 30% more
than other whites. It didn't pay off for blacks: Precisely the same
changes yielded only a 9% increase in callbacks. Someday Americans
will be able to speak of racial discrimination in hiring in the past
tense. Not yet.

Ha HA HA HA-I am cracking up at this statement-so true!!

SMU = Southern Millionaire's University;)

Too bad AA didn't fix this problem eh?

-Rudey

LOL!

I know you're being sarcastic, but yeah, it is.

A world where a white man with a prison sentence is more likely to get called back for a job than a black man without one, as if being black was in itself a character flaw -- that speaks volumes about how much we need AA in some form or another. Contrary to popular belief, our society hasn't changed enough in the past 50 years to be fair without it.

Then isn't Affirmative Action akin in some ways to telling someone who is depressed to slap a smile on their face?

You're dealing only with the symptoms, not addressing the fundamental problem that you've raised - I think this is what Librasoul was getting at, indirectly, but instead of being a reason for AA, I find it to be the most distasteful part of the concept.

Hate to drop the bomb on this guy, but hes wrong. It is about race I don't care if you are for or against it, thats how they get that "diverse community". And while it was hostile because it would be easy to see some people would be offended... I don't think limiting free speech is good (maybe having campus police there would have been better). If I have to deal with Fred Phelps and his God hates fags bullshit here at KU they can deal with the young conservatives!!

In a sense, yes. But trying to change how people feel is going to be a much, much lengthier process than trying to change their behavior. And no matter how hard we try, there are always going to racists out there. So what do we do in the meantime?

I think a more accurate analogy would be like a person who is depressed taking anti-depressants. It's a quick fix solution that changes the physical problems so things will be better as soon as possible, as opposed to tackling the more difficult emotional issues behind the depression, which will in the long-term be a better solution, but also take much longer.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sugar and spice
[B]I'm not calling them idiots because they don't like affirmative action. I'm calling them idiots because this was a horribly ineffective and verging-on-racist way of saying that they don't like affirmative action.


Ineffective???? Are you nuts? Are we (a bunch of people basically unaffected by the protest ) not sitting here on the 5th page of a thread discussing it? Is that not the point of a protest? To get your point out in the open? The fact that this is one of the longest threads in this community shows it was highly effective. I am not stating I am for or against affirmative action, but this was one hell of an idea

Also, what this article doesn't tell you, is that a good deal of the students in this conservative group were minorities. Take what you want from the whole idea, but I think this was a clever protest. Offensive? OH YES... BUT CLEVER.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't effective at raising attention towards the issue. But it wasn't an effective way of demonstrating why they don't agree with affirmative action -- as KSig RC (I think) pointed out earlier, it doesn't attack the way affirmative action actually works. Plus its message was too vague and easily could be misconstrued.

I also think that it wasn't the actual act that brought this much attention to the subject -- after all, other schools have attempted the same stunt with less publicized results. It's the fact that the school shut these guys down that drew so much attention to it.

Not to mention that 7 pages isn't really that long for a GC thread . . . especially one on race. :p

You said a "good deal" of the students were minorities themselves. What constitutes "a good deal"? I'm just curious. Also, I'm sick of people using the "oh, well, there were minorities doing it too so why do people care if white people do it" excuse. As far as I know, there's nothing saying that every African-American has to be for affirmative action, or that every minority has to get upset about things like this. But there's also nothing saying that just because some people of color don't agree with affirmative action or aren't easily offended by issues related to race, AA shouldn't exist.

To sum up: I don't think anybody, myself included, is saying that AA is the answer to everything. I don't think anyone is saying that it's a perfect system, that it's always fair, or that it's always implemented correctly. But given the way things are in America (see the article above for one of many, many examples), it seems pretty clear that something is needed to even things out. AA might not be the perfect answer, but it's more fair than what we had before AA, and it's the best thing we have right now.

How ironic...
 

I bet if the SMU students sold the cookies to African Americans for $1.00, this group would have collected a higher profit and would have been able to change those $50 bills...

Librasoul---

You can PM me if you want to discuss more... But it is pointless to see what an alternative is for affirmative action is from this type of forum because basically, folks don't know and really don't care... I care... But most other folks could not give a dayum whether they are sitting next to some one of another race, ethnic group, sexual orientation or etc...



On that note~~~

The 1965 Civil Rights act signed by President Lyndon Johnson states that all public services must provide equal opportunity and ACCESS to public accomodations... Thereby, ending segregation. Integration was an attempt to end public segregation in public services... One instrument that seemed to be a quick fix to this problem of segregation was affirmative action.

The public sectors that needed to be address were employment and education. Basically, if my taxes go to pay for these universities, then my child ought to have equal ACCESS to these services unless America was ready to dictate that they had 2 social classes... And back in 1965, America wasn't about to state that they did giving the Soviet Union the fodder it needed to have nuclear missles in Cuba--basically saying to the public--lookie hearrah, lookie heaaraah--the Americans are facists...

Folks, KNOW YOUR HISTORY!!! Most of what we are seeing are results of what our anscestors have levied upon our generation and generations to come to deal with and pay for...

Now, there are 2 ways I can argue for AA: Just like sugar and spice is doing with logical conclusions OR, break it down to one inalienable fact. Which one do you want me to do???

'Cuz really, there are tons of folks that got hella talent, there are only so many spots to put them into... What's a college s'pose to do???

Is the 'unalienable fact' that racism exists in America today? or if you choose, the stronger "institutionalized racism is prevalent in American culture" can be used, it's really up to you.

Either way - how does Affirmative Action combat the latently racist culture propagated by the majority?

NOTE: it doesn't. It attacks ONE symptom, and poorly at that.

If you're going to break the problem down to the least common denominator, that's fine - but then you have to address the problem on that level as well, which is a monumental task to be sure - so we better get started.

Well just like every other thing in our government - AA needs to be reformed. When it was instituted, it worked wonderfully, now we have over corrected the problem and are now stuck with a new one. REFORM!!

As for the bake sale - I think its great that the students were non violently protesting AA, despite what passing students thought. Most of what people felt were gut check first instinct reactions. Everyone was so quick to get defensive they didn't read into what they students were ACTUALLY saying.

Out of curiosity, in what way have we "overcorrected" the problem?

Also, AA has never worked wonderfully. Earlier in its history it relied primarily on quotas, which, if anything, make it a lot easier for AA to go in the wrong direction. These days quotas are illegal in the workforce, although I think quite a few universities still use them in some form or another. Schools aren't required to reveal their AA policies, so it's hard to tell.

How would you recommend that it be reformed?

ok AA was intended to level out the playing field so to speak with White vs. Black. Now the most 'discriminated' person is the White Male because of AA - thats what I mean about over correcting.

Reform, thats all I was going for there.

I'd like to see some numbers (statistics) from various sources to back this statement up. In my day-to-day work I don't see your statement as being true.

I just read almost this entire thread- wow-
My personal feelings are that the bake sale, however tactless, was making a point, albeit one sided. But that is the great thing about freedom in America, you can have a one sided mind and it is perfectly legal. Students didn't get their message, they just got offended, which I think is sad, because I think the group really was trying to get people to think about AA.

I have seen forms of racism going both ways; my brother, a middle class white male, lost a scholarship to a minority with lower test scores and GPA, and it was his friend. They even talked about it, but in the end what can you do? It was up to the selection committee. BTW Minorities were allowed to APPLY with 5 points lower than a caucasian on the ACT, 5 points is a lot! Talk about equal OPPORTUNITY?!?
I grew up in a prodominetly black neighborhood and when I went into stores I wasn't followed like my friends. It bothered them a lot and I didn't even realize it. I was at work the other day and two men came in that were african american and they wanted information on commercial leasing, but because they were wearing blue collar clothes one of my older female collegues wandered in our huge loop and came back up front to see "if I needed help" I assisted the men and they left and she asked if I was scared, and I asked her why, and she said POINT BLANK!!! "Well, two large black men, didn't you think they were casing this place?"
My reply "would you think that if they were in suits, or if they were white in the same clothes?" Ignorant fool!

So, in the end, I don't think there is a solution. There are always people with ignorant minds, and there is always injustice to someone. I love working side by side with people of all backgrounds, but honestly, in my workplace, there is only 1 female manager, the rest are all men. That bothers me a lot too.
I don't think that women should be hired over men, and I don't think minorities should be hired over caucasians- I also don't believe the reverse should occur, I don't believe men and caucasians should be hired or accepted into a school based on those criteria.
In a perfect world, the best candidates would be hired and accepted.
But this isn't a perfect world, in case anyone didn't notice. I am not proAA, but if you can come up with a better idea, let me know! Meanwhile, I can't think up a way to keep management diverse, schools diverse, and so on and so forth.
But I am not so sure it will matter in the future since the hispanic populations is predicted to be the #1 "minority" by 2050 and it may be possible that "whites" are the minority by 2120. At the rate things are going it looks that way.

ok personal example ~

My husband graduated 1st in his class from Fire Academy here in Dallas. His dream was to be a Dallas Firefighter --- is he one now? 3 years later? No. Would you like to know why? b/c he wasn't black, hispanic, or female. It worked out in his advantage though because he now has a higher paying job in the suburbs, but still his dream was taken away from him because he was a white male.

Ok that was just one example from here in Texas. You may not see it in YOUR work, but I see it daily here. I would also like to add, none of this angers me - the AA I mean. I don't see why everyone is jumping all over my ass because I suggested reform.

shit :rolleyes:

well said Sarah :)

The only way a college or university can restrict freedom of speech is if it's apart of a classroom assignment. Apparently, this wasn't apart of a class.

Please cite stats for this little tidbit.

In fact EVERY study I have ever seen shows that WHITE FEMALES actually are the main benefactor of AA.

And MereMere, your example is just laughable. I mean he got a HIGHER PAYING JOB IN THE SUBURBS. So what on earth is your point??

Seriously, your logic is so fallacious I will try to let you dig yourself deeper before I truly pick it apart.

In the UNT newspaper ... the College Republicans on this campus were planning a similar bake sale, but cancelled it due to the SMU bake sale controversy.

LibraSoul/sugar and spice,
While I applaud your conviction and your ability to bring up relevant points, I really have to, at this point, question your sanity. Why in the WORLD would you keep coming back to this conversation when it is obvious people have their minds made up??? S&S posted an article, in the Wall Street Journal no less, that confirms that discrimination is a problem in hiring (at least in Wisconsin --a northern state at that! :eek: ) and that names play at least some part in the hiring of otherwise qualified candidates, but what do you get back?

Well, my husband wanted to work for this firestation and he was passed over for a minority and ((HORRORS)) he had to SETTLE for a better paying job in the surburbs! CRY ME A RIVER! :rolleyes:

If we want to talk antedotes, let's try this one. My father was a teacher/assistant basketball coach at the "black" high school in my home town for about 15 years. His JV teams were frequently city champs and had great records. He applied to ever open head coaching job in the same town during that time period and was turn down for less experienced white coaches. He finally filed a law suit against the city and was hired as head basketball coach for what was then a predominately (about 90%) white HS. He went on to win 6 Georgia state championships and was runner up on 2 other occasions. He's had teams that were nationally ranked by USA Today. He's coached--in various all star games and tourneys including the premier HS all star game--the McDonald's All American game-- many of the NBA stars today. Too bad none of that means anything since he was an Affirmative Action hire.

I can't remember what song it was in, but "give it up, turn it loose".

Could it be that the interviewers simply did not like him? You know there's many other reasons why employers don't hire people...besides race and qualification.

I doubt his race was a factor, it is Dallas afterall.

I definately agree.

There is no real way of knowing why he wasn't hired, so we can't just assume it is because of his race or gender.

I feel like this example is somewhat like sorority rush. Sometimes when say "SuzyQ." gets cut from a house during recruitment, only the sisters who were present during the Membership Selection Session know the real reason why she was cut. It could have been grades, it could have been because she seemed like she didn't want to be at their recruitment party, it could have been because of a number of things, but the point is that only the sisters in the session know why she was cut. It isn't right for "SuzyQ." to automatically assume she was cut because of her race or because of anythign else, when there is no way of her really knowing that.

Unless they flat out said something like "we're not going to hire you because you're not a woman or a minority" there is no way he (or *anyone*) could have known for sure that is why he was not hired.

Good point Dionysus...

This principle could be a factor behind anyone NOT being hired. Just because a black man does not get a job and a white guy does, does not mean the employer has race issues.

holy crap people - didn't y'all read the part where I said I wasn't mad about AA?

reform, that was my point and yet everyone passed over that

as for the interview~

Firefigthers don't have interviews like job interviews

1. you have to meet the pre req's (ie: education, age etc....)
2. you then take a physical exam
3. personal interview
4. mental test - polygraph
5. drug test

He didn't even make it to the interview - we know now it was because of race because his classmate (#4 in the class I might add) was hispanic and got the job.....hmmmm.....doesn't take rocket science to figure that one out. Besides, he just finished his MICU ride outs with Dallas and even the firemen themselves admit to AA run amuck in Dallas!


All of that is irrelevent. I have no statistics, I have a job and family so looking up statistics on AA before I post on a comment board was not going to happen. My point was that AA needed to be reformed so why is everyone so quick to jump all over my ass?

Also, whatever I know about AA is what I've learned through high school, all of college and personal experiences. I'm not an AA professor, educator or expert and I doubt anyone posting on this board can know everything there is to know about AA unless they actually worked in the LBJ administration. Opinions were expressed so I added mine, why then does that make me an idiot? I graduated high school, have a Bachelor's of Science in Nursing but I'm stupid because I don't agree with some of you? give me a break.



Edited for bad grammer caused by fast typing

There is no research to back up what you're saying. As pointed out, white females benefit much more from affirmative action than people of color. And if you look around, you will notice that many of the reasons that AA was put into place -- wage gap between men and women, wage gap between whites and minorities, very few women and people of color in positions of power -- still exist. AA has done an okay job at fixing the percentage of POC and women in the workforce and in education, and has made some strides in the aforementioned areas, but there is still a lot of change that needs to happen.

Furthermore, personal stories do not equal concrete evidence. (Neither do statistics, for that matter, but they are closer.) I've seen this in a lot of posts, not just here, and it's driving me crazy. If I wanted to argue the point that convicted murderers should be released from prison to take care of babies, I could probably find a murderer that is great with kids and use him to prove my point . . . however, that doesn't mean that is true as a whole. :p

You also don't know why your husband wasn't hired. A well-cited example of this is the Bakke case that allowed the use of quotas -- this kid had applied to med school twice, had great stats (much higher than the minority statistics), and was rejected both times. He later sued (and won), claiming that he didn't get in because the med school saved 16 of its 100 students for minorities. The thing that anti-AAers don't like to mention is that Bakke's statistics were also much higher than the WHITE students who were accepted. So obviously the admissions committee found something lacking in Bakke (besides race!), despite his scores, and passed him over. The same thing happens today. We can't guess why -- even if you don't make it to the interview phase, even if you just turn in an application, there could be things on it that might show them that you're not right for the job. Maybe you don't have enough experience. Maybe you make stupid spelling mistakes and they question your intelligence. Maybe they called a reference who said "Oh yeah, so and so's a great guy and a hard worker BUT . . . " and you weren't what they were looking for. And yeah, maybe you weren't the right race. But who knows?

And to whomever it was that was questioning my sanity, I have often questioned it over the course of this thread. :p But I think it's important to point out when someone's logic is faulty or they're not making legitimate points, or they're relying on tired rhetoric which isn't true (anybody who truly believes that white males are the most discriminated-against subsection of this country needs to do some research!). I know there are people that are tired of this issue, and that's fine -- they can skip over it. I think anybody who's been on GC for more than a few weeks knows what a race issue discussion here is likely to consist of.

Out of curiosity -- I have asked this once and got no answers -- for those of you that advocate reform, HOW do you suggest AA be reformed? I see a lot of people pushing for reform, but no suggestions as to how to effectively do it.

I don't understand why we can't just post opinions and discuss them rather them cut everyone else down.

I didn't have any concrete evidence because, like I already posted, I'm not an AA expert nor did I ever claim to be. Instead, I posted just one personal experience with AA.

Bethany1982 I think already stated that AA should be based on ability not race - there is one way it could be reformed.

THat would be me! I should have added that I give you a lot of credit for sticking to your guns and havign the patience to deal with this. I don't anymore. I've sat at what my friends and I call "the Black Desk" i.e. if you have questions about the Black race at work/school, see the friendly Negro at the Black Desk!, too many times and I just don't have the energy to get into these discussions any more.

This arguement...
 

A previously blatant racist government must take actions to correct the discriminations of the past--or how can it truly call itself a democracy??? "Home of the free and the brave..." That "all men are created equal... " But they had slaves... And justified the murder of millions in the indigenious populations... Where is the retribution? Where is the day of reconciliation? What will it take to end it? Blood? That seems to solve many a problem throughout the world... But is that where we really want our society and civilization to go?

Affirmative action as it currently stands is all we got until time shows us or God shows us alternatives... I do not know what alternatives there will be. But there must be some, somewhere. In fact, some in the African American community think that if "the American government pays reparations, then the affirmative action debacle will be put asunder..." But that is what some think...

Otherwise, let us label it what some people of color already know what it is: the arguments against affirmative action is just blatant White Supremacy--skrait up... It is no different that being a Kard Karry Kind of member to be against affirmative action. That is exactly what many underrepresented folks think--because, really, I am NOT a minority--I just am taxed without representation in my district...

But, if I argue in that point, folks will flame me left and right... Many just cannot accept that they have bigotries... That they have inane biases based completely on stereotypes, which begin as false assumptions and lies, anyway. And one does not have to be African American or caucasian to be a bigot...

From a Spiritual standpoint--the real reason why we need affirmative action:

You base "life" merely on ability, test scores, recipient of numerous awards within a chosen field--accolade after accolade...

But will any of your accomplishments get you into the Christian "Heaven"???

Because the last time I read the Bible, one can only get into Heaven though Jesus Christ... The Blood of Christ, the Word of Christ--NOT BY DEED!!! It is quicker for a rich man to get through an EYE OF A NEEDLE, than it is for him to get into Heaven... "You can only get into Heaven but through me...", etc., etc. etc....

And if Jesus Christ gives me affirmative action EVERY DAY, then how come you can't or won't???

And if you don't believe in Jesus Christ----Oh, so you ARE THE DEVIL...

Just wanted to know who I was dealing with...

Now that I know what Principalities I am working with, then I know this is a BATTLE over good versus evil...

You all can say it is bogus--but these are the same Europeans that landed on this site of the planet and forced all non-Europeans to believe in those doctrines... So what do you say about those doctrines, now? Those are some of YOUR FOREFATHERS... Not mine... You would deny your heritage, NOW? Of all places, NOW?

Aw man AKA_monet, you started out so well, and then you quickly descended into insanity. There are such things as religious bigots too. You might want to check yourself out for that.

Please don't use that route to defend AA, it really doesn't help.