OK then - so why do we assume it to have a positive impact? Does it really make any more sense to assume something intangible in one direction than in another?

Remove yourself from all passionate link to the topic at hand, and I think you'll agree with me. If you can't measure it (and I'm with Rudey - you probably can, you just need to decide what you're measuring to prove the point), then why do we assume an outcome?

No measurement == no proof.

OK, but I'm not 'calling them idiots' because of some viewpoint difference (if any, remember that I didn't really state my views) - I think they made a fallacious scenario that doesn't prove their point, and this failure is why I'm 'calling them idiots.'

maybe we should turn our anger towards the kids who get in off of mom and dad's hefty donations to the college and the fact that their child was an alma mater

those people are the real enemies


especially when you have kids committing suicides because they don't WANT to go to their parent's alma mater but they make them. . .

No, no, no, I definitely agree. My whole point was using a study or survey or ANYTHING to back up you point of view is pretty much ludicrous. This topic is really one of opinion. Just out of curiousity, how would one measure such a thing?

I never said that having a "diverse" environment would be helpful, either. In fact, even in the face of diversity, most people tend to self-segregate, so there ya go.

My whole thing is trying to get people to understand that if one opposes Affirmative Action, one should then propose something BETTER (while still being realistic).

I guess we would have to define "work." If work means to allow the same students entrance into programs that they are currently able to enter when given special preferences, possibly not. Allowing anyone preferred placement into a program is what makes the current system not work. A colorblind system would remove benefits that some students currently receive over others. Other than that, an ability-based system would work. A colorblind system would reduce prejudice. The current system is anything but prejudice free. Do you really believe that certain individuals cannot compete through ability alone?

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!