# Affirmative Action Does Damage?



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB118792252575507571.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries



> Easily the most startling conclusion of his research: Mr. Sander calculated that there are fewer black attorneys today than there would have been if law schools had practiced color-blind admissions -- about 7.9% fewer by his reckoning. He identified the culprit as the practice of admitting minority students to schools for which they are inadequately prepared. In essence, they have been "matched" to the wrong school.


However, even more disturbing:



> Take William Kidder, a University of California staff advisor and co-author of a frequently cited attack of Sander's study. When Mr. Sander and his co-investigators sought bar passage data from the State Bar of California that would allow analysis by race, Mr. Kidder passionately argued that access should be denied, because disclosure "risks stigmatizing African American attorneys."





> While some students will outperform their entering academic credentials, just as some students will underperform theirs, most students will perform in the range that their academic credentials predict. As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels. This much is uncontroversial.


Thoughts?


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Affirmative action as a concept is not the problem. Not matching up students to schools that they can handle is the problem.

Has anyone considered that maybe people who supposedly mean well in admissions departments are intentionally putting minority students into environments they can't handle in order to match the letter of the law but not the intent, and eliminate the black students early so that they can turn around and say "Well, we tried, but they just couln't handle it." ?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

StevenRocks said:


> Affirmative action as a concept is not the problem. Not matching up students to schools that they can handle is the problem.
> 
> Has anyone considered that maybe people who supposedly mean well in admissions departments are intentionally putting minority students into environments they can't handle in order to match the letter of the law but not the intent, and eliminate the black students early so that they can turn around and say "Well, we tried, but they just couln't handle it." ?


I'm not sure just how one can "mean well" and then do what you state. 
That possibility simply reeks of malintent.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

That's a very interesting report. I would like to add some quotes to those that Wayfarer provided for those of you who won't bother to read the entire article:

_the Society of American Law Teachers, which leans so heavily to the left it risks falling over sideways, gleefully warned that the state bar would be sued if it cooperated with Mr. Sander_

As an aside, this is hardly the comment of an objective reporter (Gail Heriot) and raises the question of what might have been weighted in the story.

_ Students who attend schools where their academic credentials are substantially below those of their fellow students tend to perform poorly.

Mr. Sander found that when black and white students with similar academic credentials compete against each other at the same school, they earn about the same grades. _

This was implied in the above quotes.

_Although so far his work has held up to scrutiny at least as well as that of his critics, all fair-minded scholars agree that more research is necessary before the "mismatch thesis" can be definitively accepted or rejected._


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> _Although so far his work has held up to scrutiny at least as well as that of his critics, all fair-minded scholars agree that more research is necessary before the "mismatch thesis" can be definitively accepted or rejected._


Actually rip, I made reference to this; that his further research efforts are actually being blocked! Go back and re-read my post, I quoted that. Further, this person, who's objectivity you question is the one pointing out that further research is being blocked and is the one that stated "all fair minded scholars agree" more research is needed. So what you have done with your quotes, and I thank you for that, is show the author correctly pointing out more research is needed and that left wing powers are blocking this.

One can only surmise why the left would want to block further research, that you yourself, have indicated is necessary. Do you have any reasons to put forth why they would want to block research that could help confirm or refute?

Lastly, I wish I could have cut and pasted the whole article, but that has been expressly forbidden here with copyrighted material.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Actually rip, I made reference to this; that his further research efforts are actually being blocked! Go back and re-read my post, I quoted that. Further, this person, who's objectivity you question is the one pointing out that further research is being blocked and is the one that stated "all fair minded scholars agree" more research is needed. So what you have done with your quotes, and I thank you for that, is show the author correctly pointing out more research is needed and that left wing powers are blocking this.
> 
> One can only surmise why the left would want to block further research, that you yourself, have indicated is necessary. Do you have any reasons to put forth why they would want to block research that could help confirm or refute?
> 
> Lastly, I wish I could have cut and pasted the whole article, but that has been expressly forbidden here with copyrighted material.


I had no intention of even challenging the importance of this article; I only felt that some further quotes were in order to either fill in some gaps for those who won't read the article, or to amplify the existing quotes. And it is always a good thing to see the bias of the reporter, whether left or right. As you, and any other educated person know, there is no such thing as objective reportage, that simply the choice of the data presented can weight an article in one direction or another, and knowledge of where the reporter is coming from is an essential caveat to viewing his/her reporting, and a nudge to do what we should all do anyway: check other sources before deciding that this is "THE TRUTH".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> I had no intention of even challenging the importance of this article; I only felt that some further quotes were in order to either fill in some gaps for those who won't read the article, or to amplify the existing quotes. And it is always a good thing to see the bias of the reporter, whether left or right. As you, and any other educated person know, there is no such thing as objective reportage, that simply the choice of the data presented can weight an article in one direction or another, and knowledge of where the reporter is coming from is an essential caveat to viewing his/her reporting, and a nudge to do what we should all do anyway: check other sources before deciding that this is "THE TRUTH".


Okay, this whole not arguing with you thing is getting on my nerves.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> One can only surmise why the left would want to block further research, that you yourself, have indicated is necessary. Do you have any reasons to put forth why they would want to block research that could help confirm or refute?


I have no clue, other than as a knee-jerk reaction. Affirmative action has been a keyword of the left since the days when it probably was the better way, at least on lower grade levels. Martin Luther King likened the educational progress of the blacks in America to the back wheels of a wagon. The civil and voting rights acts of the 50s and 60s allowed the back wheels to be attached to the same wagon as the whites (front wheels), but unless something dramatic is done, the back wheels will never catch up with the front wheels.

At the time, logic certainly dictated that blacks would benefit from something like affirmative action. Studies like the one referred to here seem to cast some doubt on the efficacy of that, at least in certain areas, such as elite law schools. Never let it be said that the Left, just like the Right, doesn't hold on vigorously, even sometimes viciously, to old ideas, even wrong ones, fearing that, if one idea can go, maybe many others, too. After all, if you ***** us, do we not bleed?
So, as foolish as it may be I (and I think it is terminally stupid), some feel that by blocking any further research, the whole thing will just go away.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Okay, this whole not arguing with you thing is getting on my nerves.


Take two aspirin and don't call me in the morning.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

rip said:


> I'm not sure just how one can "mean well" and then do what you state.
> That possibility simply reeks of malintent.


That's my point. though for clarity's sake I should have used quotation marks. There are more than a few people in college admissions departments that don't believe in affirmative action and try to sabotage it.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Why not fix the problem and do some things that will radically improve how the poorer citizens of our country are educated? The playing field can probably never be completely fair, but if there was decent education for minority and poor citizens, there would be no need for affirmative action. I find affirmative action to be totally unfair.

However, fixing public education could very possibly involve allowing for school of choice and breaking up the teacher's union. Liberals will make sure these things don't happen. I'm almost wondering if the Liberals cynically want an underclass so they can always pit them against richer people and get their votes. 

If conservatives were more interested in fixing this education problem, I'd have more sympathy for some of their other things.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Why not fix the problem and do some things that will radically improve how the poorer citizens of our country are educated?


You mean like give them mommies and daddies that are actually married to each other and teach them that academic achievement is more important than hip hop and basketball? What a crazy concept!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> However, fixing public education could very possibly involve allowing for school of choice and breaking up the teacher's union. Liberals will make sure these things don't happen. *I'm almost wondering if the Liberals cynically want an underclass so they can always pit them against richer people and get their votes. *


FB2k:

"Almost wondering"? You are more optimistic about their motives than I am.

IMO, one of the biggest problems with US public education is funding. The tax base is just too closely tied to the local SES level. I would think even the president of a local NEA could figure out poor people are going to render poor funding and wealthy people are going to render better funding. IMO, funding needs to be at a statewide level at the very least. I am well aware of the issues, i.e. states' rights, etc., but is something is broken beyond fixing, rethink the strategy!


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

android said:


> You mean like give them mommies and daddies that are actually married to each other and teach them that academic achievement is more important than hip hop and basketball? What a crazy concept!


That's insulting and misleading. There are a lot of problems in the black community but trying to put a simplistic blanket statement that's factually inaccurate around a complex issue like academic achievement is bollocks.

Most black people I know grew up in loving, two-parent households without 'hip-hop' or 'basketball' influences, but many of them did not do well academically because they went to crappy schools or didn't have enough money or precedent to go to college.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I was in my boss' office the other day, when I noticed a paper on her desk, there were several positions that needed to be filled, and on each job posting, the orders from upstairs were printed in black and white, plain as day that they were to make every effort to hire only "African-American Females" for these positions...now, I have no problem with an African-American Female getting one of these positions, if they are the most qualified candidate...but why should they get special treatment when there might be soem white lady (or guy), or somebody from any other ethnic background who might do a better job and be better qualified, but don't have the "complexion to make the connection"???

I've never really understood how Affirmative Action is anything other than leagalized racism in the workplace...


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I was in my boss' office the other day, when I noticed a paper on her desk, there were several positions that needed to be filled, and on each job posting, the orders from upstairs were printed in black and white, plain as day that they were to make every effort to hire only "African-American Females" for these positions...now, I have no problem with an African-American Female getting one of these positions, if they are the most qualified candidate...but why should they get special treatment when there might be soem white lady (or guy), or somebody from any other ethnic background who might do a better job and be better qualified, but don't have the "complexion to make the connection"???
> 
> I've never really understood how Affirmative Action is anything other than leagalized racism in the workplace...


The application of affirmative action in this scenario seems a bit onerous. Affirmative action is basically giving certain groups a leg up to counter-balance being put at a disadvantage for long periods of time. On a micro level for individuals, it really doesn't seem fair that person A gets a job and person B doesn't. But affirmative action is more oriented towards the macro level of changing overall societal conditions, which seems like a good idea.

I can't remember who said this, or if this is the exact wording, but someone once said:

_"If affirmative action is the practice of giving conferring advantages on people because of their race, then white men are the biggest recipients of affirmative action in American history."

_There are similar programs in Canada, although not on the scale of the USA, and they don't seem to draw as much controversy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> I can't remember who said this, or if this is the exact wording, but someone once said:
> 
> _"If affirmative action is the practice of giving conferring advantages on people because of their race, then white men are the biggest recipients of affirmative action in American history."
> 
> _


The only problem is, that is a huge piece of tripe. "White men" just do not exist as a monolithic cultural and/or socio-economic group. Just ask the families of all the miners that have been killed in the last two years how much advantage was conferred upon them due to their race.

Also, AA is far from *not* being controversial in Canada, _oui, mon ami_.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

omairp said:


> I can't remember who said this, or if this is the exact wording, but someone once said:
> 
> _"If affirmative action is the practice of giving conferring advantages on people because of their race, then white men are the biggest recipients of affirmative action in American history."
> 
> _


_

I think statements like that do more to keep minorities down than "******" ever could...I'm sorry...I guess being born half ******, but raised by my honkee half gave me an interesting perspective on race...I could be totally wrong, but, it seems to me that white people haven't had any unfair advantages for probably about the past 2 generations...sorry...but Affirmative action is not helping level the playing field, all it's doing is cultivating un-necessary resentment between the races...if you want to talk real racial equality, then, Affirmative action would have to be one of the first things to go..._


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> white people haven't had any unfair advantages for probably about the past 2 generations...sorry...but Affirmative action is not helping level the playing field, all it's doing is cultivating un-necessary resentment between the races...


Perhaps white people haven't had any unfair advantages for the last 2 generations, but affirmative action proponents argue that the effects of racial discrimination are cumulative, and that people today are still feeling the effects of racism from several generations ago. _*For example,*_ African-Americans went from slaves to second class citizens to just plain citizens. But still its no secret there are ghettos filled with black people who have been there for generations because poverty tends to be a vicious cycle.

The idea of giving everyone the exact same treatment with no regard to their background works pefectly if everyone has a perfectly equal starting position in life, but that's not the case.

So what is your proposed alternative to affirmative action?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> But still its no secret there are ghettos filled with black people who have been there for generations because poverty tends to be a vicious cycle.


https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/countryboys/readings/duncan.html

https://ideas.repec.org/p/hcx/wpaper/0301.html

Yes, because only blacks live in inter-generational poverty and all white people live in mansions.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The Reverand King overlooked those wheels were lubricated by 'the real McCoy.' We are what we are because of talented and brave people of all ethnicities. However well meaning, any artificial devise is as damaging as the artificial devises it seeks to remedy. We need real McCoy solutions.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/countryboys/readings/duncan.html
> 
> https://ideas.repec.org/p/hcx/wpaper/0301.html
> 
> Yes, because only blacks live in inter-generational poverty and all white people live in mansions.


Read my post a little carefully and you will notice the words "*for example" *when referencing African-Americans. The argument is just as applicable to Applacians, Native Americans, and pretty much every other ethnicity. Me not mentioning any other ethnicities does not mean that only black people have ever had to deal with poverty.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> Read my post a little carefully and you will notice the words "*for example" *when referencing African-Americans. The argument is just as applicable to Applacians, Native Americans, and pretty much every other ethnicity. Me not mentioning any other ethnicities does not mean that only black people have ever had to deal with poverty.


Son, "Applacian" is not an "ethnicity". They are what you would call "white" people. You know, the one your quote tripe mentions above? Do you really know so little? Further, if it is for "every other ethnicity", why are Oriental students not beneficiaries of Affirmative Action? They are a much smaller minority than both blacks and hispanics.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Son, "Applacian" is not an "ethnicity". They are what you would call "white" people.


Old-timer, crack open a dictionary and look up the word "ethnic." It's people "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or *cultural origin* or background" according to Merriam-Websters. It can very easily be argued that Applacian people are of a unique ethnicity. Ethnicity is not as simple as skin colour. :teacha:

Look at people in Darfur, Darfurians are considered to be "African" ethnicity and Janjaweed's are considered to be of "Arab" ethnicity. You may be surprised to learn they both have skin we would categorize as "black." 



Wayfarer said:


> Further, if it is for "every other ethnicity", why are Oriental students not beneficiaries of Affirmative Action? They are a much smaller minority than both blacks and hispanics.


That is a short-coming for affirmative action. Size of the minority is irrelevant. I think some sort of "affirmative action" should be used to level the playing field for every disadvantaged group that is a victim of systemic discrimination, whether it is along ethnic lines or not. If a group of people are disadvantaged as a whole, they should receive some sort of assistance regardless of their ethnicity. However, if that group of people as a whole have managed to overcome any barriers to success, then the affirmative action may no longer be necessary.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> Old-timer, crack open a dictionary and look up the word "ethnic." It's people "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or *cultural origin* or background" according to Merriam-Websters. It can very easily be argued that Applacian people are of a unique ethnicity. Ethnicity is not as simple as skin colour. :teacha:


So then your quote above regarding "white men" is 100% bullshyte, according to your own definition of "ethnic" as there is just no such thing "white men". Gee, who said that already? Why, it was me!



omairp said:


> And the use of "oriental" is also regarded as offensive by some, because it uses a similar skin pigmentation to lump many different ethnicities together.


You really could not get things more back-asswards if you tried. My Japanese/Chinese wife just hates to be called "Asian". She much prefers "Oriental" as that conveys origins from a specific part of Asia, vs. "Asian" that can actually do what you are stating, i.e. lumping many different ethnicities together, from Viet Nam to Pakistan. So I hope you will excuse me if I honour the request of someone that is actually of the background in question? Damn, do you not just hate it when the real deal bites PC in the arse?



omairp said:


> That is a sign of short-coming for affirmative action. I think some sort of "affirmative action" should be used to level the playing field for every disadvantaged group if they are the victim of systemic discrimination. If a group of people are disadvantaged as a whole, they should receive some sort of assistance regardless of their skin colour or numbers. However, if that group of people as a whole have managed to overcome any barriers to success, then the affirmative action may no longer be necessary.


Quite recently, there were "Non-Partisan Anti-Chinese Leagues" right here in Arizona and Chinese were not allowed to own property in Arizona (and other states) at one time. Further, Japanese were herded into internment camps during WWII. Before you go any further showing just how little you know about this topic, explain to me why there is no affirmative action admission programs for people that were treated by the US government in this fashion such a short time ago.

From your post, it is quite clear you do not know the true state of what Affirmative Action has caused, namely that students deemed "Asian" have been held to standards higher than any other group. Explain that please.

Cheers


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

omairp said:


> Perhaps white people haven't had any unfair advantages for the last 2 generations, but affirmative action proponents argue that the effects of racial discrimination are cumulative, and that people today are still feeling the effects of racism from several generations ago. For example, African-Americans went from slaves to second class citizens to just plain citizens. But still its no secret there are ghettos filled with black people who have been there for generations because poverty tends to be a vicious cycle.
> 
> The idea of giving everyone the exact same treatment with no regard to their background works pefectly if everyone has a perfectly equal starting position in life, but that's not the case.
> 
> So what is your proposed alternative to affirmative action?


Yes...but the notion of the stereotypical WASP with the sweater tied around his waist swinging a tennis racket while eating lobster tails and guffawing at poor people is just as unfair a stereotype of white people as the image of an uneducated unwashed criminal slanging rock on some corner in the hood is of black people...or the math whiz devoid of personalty and driving skill for Asians...or the illeterate non English speaking ******* with a fist full of food stamps and about twenty kids in line at the grocery store buying a shopping cart full of tortillas, lard, and cervesas is for Hispanics...The thing is that stereotypes don't acurately represent anybody...maybe some of them hold true (I surely do love a good puro and a couple of shots of rum after a dinner of picadillo and yellow rice with morros and fried yucca)...but, you can't rely on them as an acurate depiction of what's really going on...there are just as many white people struggling now-a-days, the only difference is that it's even harder for them to catch a break thanks to things like affirmative action...I think it would be unfair to trivialize something as heinous as slavery...but as one of my black friends put it just the other day...salvery has been over for almost 200 years now, it's time to step up...I knew exactly what she was saying...as a black female, she needs to go out and get what she feels she's worth instead of crying about how unfair life is that nobody gave it to her...there are plenty of white people out there who wouldnt understand this concept...

As far as alternatives go...I dunno...I'd just like to see real equality, where the most qualified candidate for a job gets it (regardless of their skin color)...


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> according to your own definition of "ethnic" as there is just no such thing "white men".


I didn't say there was no such thing as "white" people, I just said ethnicity can be defined many different ways since it is more human construct than scientific fact. If there are people who self-identify as white, than that's proof enough that "white people" can be considered an ethnicity. Applacians could be considered a sub-group of "white people" or an entirely separate ethnicity altogether. It's really their place to decide for themselves because it is so subjective.

I never said "Asian" is a more appropriate term, nor did I say that *all* people find the term "oriental" offensive. The term Asian bugs me too because depending on who says it, it can either be defined to include me or exclude me as a Pakistani.



Wayfarer said:


> Affirmative Action has caused... students deemed "Asian" have been held to standards higher than any other group. Explain that please.


You clearly have me confused with Jesse Jackson (perhaps you think I'm secretly him in addition to several other posters on this forum.) I've already stated I'm not a 100% supporter of affirmative action exactly the way it is being manifested in the USA today. I don't believe in forcing business to hire people of a certain ethnicity to meet quotas. I just believe in giving everyone an opportunity to succeed. Whether they take advantage of that oppurtunity or not is their personal responsibility. Some people argue that is best achieved by trying to create a world where people are "colour-blind", but I think that is over-simplistic.

I said in my last post, any group that is victimized by systemic discrimination should have some sort of recourse. This definetly applies to a group of students who are help to a higher standard than any other group. The scenarios you described are both very unfair, I profusely apologize for not reading up on my Arizona history books in advance. :icon_smile:

Maybe you should ask Al Sharpton to hold a rally for Chinese and Japanese people in Arizona. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Funny thing, ethnicity. I attended a reservation kindergarden in Arizona because of this piece of paper saying I was an enrolled Choctaw. It sure beat the long drive in 1960. There were more than a few P.O.ed Pimas and Papagos over that! But personal perseverance (and a case of 'sidewalk sundays' when the monsoons were late) got me into social circles- and Kivas my younger brother recoiled from, listening to our paternal grandmother and attending the city school at a wopping .17 a gallon in our pink Chrysler hemi station wagon. Then my parents divorced and I went into an anglican parochial school with an orangeman vicar fresh from a summer having Fenian history drilled into me in gaelic by my 101 y/o greatgrandmother. My younger brother rebelled at 'that church BS' and now the 1963 Chrysler 300 took him to public school at .20 a gallon. Poor me, I learned the rudiments of greek and latin, high church and a part of irish history somehow overlooked. I made my one and only pilgrimage to Pitcher Oklahoma before the start of junior high. It's now a virtual ghost town, one of the Nation's biggest environmental cleanup zones from mining. I connected with one great aunt who was active in tribal affairs. She explained the only reason the family enrolled was for oil and mineral rights money and my grandmother was embaressed by the 'dilution of blood.' I came back with a black indian hat and the honour of being called an alikshe- sort of a tribal guardian of history and against spiritual threats. My brother refused to go, spending the summer at the beach getting nice and brown. Then I visited Mexico City and researched the family artifacts of Corporal Patrick Kavanagh and that lost cause. My brother professed a hatred for latinos. High school was a wash- a whitewash of urban america in the still rural Simi Valley now of Reagan Library and Manson Family Fame. Well no, the first black family moved in and their single daughter was on the summer comittee with me. I came walking in with a 16 oz bottle of coke -.25! and she asked for a sip. I gave it to her, she drank and handed the bottle back. Then she watched me as I actually resumed drinking from it without wiping the lip off. And I realised the whole summer comittee was waiting to see if I'd implode or something. I didn't, and like to think I paved the way for all the black families now living in that overdeveloped town. I enlisted after an abortive semester at the local Junior College. My brother got a scholarship to UCLA- partly based as a minority when he submitted his Choctaw enrollment. Later after my grandmother's passing they brought the only 'indian artifact' to me for appraisal, an old squash blossom water pitcher. they were convinced it was worth a fortune based on old Arizona Highway articles about pueblo ceramics. I told the truth, my expertise was in Alaskan- Pacific Coast and Great Basin archaeology and I didn't know pots from Tupperwear. So they took it to an appraiser- who told them it was mexican, circa 1920s and worth $60. Ethnic is what you make yourself into , with the luck of a hypocrite family document and spending time in the real world sort of tripping into people.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Yes...but the notion of the stereotypical WASP with the sweater tied around his waist swinging a tennis racket while eating lobster tails and guffawing at poor people is just as unfair... (A)s a black female, she needs to go out and get what she feels she's worth instead of crying about how unfair life is that nobody gave it to her...there are plenty of white people out there who wouldnt understand this concept...
> 
> As far as alternatives go...I dunno...I'd just like to see real equality, where the most qualified candidate for a job gets it (regardless of their skin color)...


I totally understand what you're saying, not everything is about race. Sometimes if you don't get the job it's because you're just not qualified. But at the same time I think its over-simplistic to try and achieve a world that is "colour-blind" at this point in time. Indirectly race still plays a role in the lives of most people, whether they realize it or not.

I am all for personal responsibility, companies shouldn't be forced into hiring un-qualified people to meet quotas. I think affirmative action should be more focused on educational institutions. The goal should be give disadvantaged people a chance, if they don't take advantage of it, thats their problem. Perhaps instead of denying current people seats in institutions, they should create additional seats specifically allocated for disadvantaged people and offering more scholarships for disadvantaged people.

I think affirmative actions needs to be re-examined in light of whats happening. Like any man-made system it has its problems, but I'm not convinced that scrapping it and ignoring the problem is the solution.
Maybe there should be a movement towards a system of offering affirmative action to people based on their socio-economic status instead of ethnicity. This way any disadvantaged individual whether or not they are part of a visible minority will have a chance.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> crack open a dictionary and look up the word "ethnic." It's people "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background"


Does that make "Texan" an ethnicity?

To get back to the OP, one of the interesting facts of racial quotas (disregarding for a moment all of its bewildering euphemistic variations) is that the forced placement of unqualified or under-qualified students is _*magnified*_ the further down you go on the list of desirable schools.

In other words, the discrepancy between academic qualifications and the admissions standards of the school become wider the further down you go on the list of school rankings. Why? All the better candidates get shifted up into better schools.

Let's say that out of the goodness of your heart, you mandate that 10% of all students shall come from Race Group A, and this applies to all or most schools. Unfortunately, this governmental decree does not, _ipse dixit_, instantaneously create a larger, more qualified pool of Group A candidates. Their academic quality remains the same, and they are distributed within that group in terms of their credentials and intelligence exactly as they were before the Good-Hearted Quota System was implemented.

The nation's top school can fill its 10% of Group A seats with top-tier candidates, because that school already has its pick from among the entire pool of Group A applicants. That school ends up admitting no one that is not otherwise qualified by a race-neutral criteria.

But, by the time you get to the schools in the second quintile in terms of desirability, a substantial portion of its Group A students would not be admitted were it not for the race-conscious benefit.

By the time you get to the 3rd quintile, most of the Group A students would not be admitted to any 3rd quintile school were it not for their race.

By the time you get to the 4th quintile, there are no more race-neutral-qualified applicants in Group A to admit. They are all already placed in better schools. But the quota remains. So, they have no choice but to fill _all_ of its Group A slots with students that could not get admitted to a 4th quintile school, or maybe even a 5th quintile school.

To attract Group A students to these lower-end schools, not only do they obviously have to lower their admissions standards by a larger degree than upper-end schools, but they also have to come up with all sorts of incentives and freebies. Which, in turn, forces the schools higher on the list to do the same to keep from losing its relatively-better Group A students to inferior schools because it was out-competed in terms of perks and incentives.

In other words, to account for the effects of this or any governmental mandate, you have to consider how it affects _all_ of the people covered by it, not just those upper-echelon students who get all of the praise and media attention.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It's a good thing I've been watching Da Vinci's Code on the TEEVEE about this Crown Coroner. To listen to Omairp and Wayfarer a fella would wonder what happened to the Canada of Chunky Woodward men's clothing, politeness and no exit fees at the border.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Under the law and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefiting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications. So anyone who is placing unqualified persons of color or women into jobs or degree programs is in violation of the law.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> *I didn't say there was no such thing as "white" people, *I just said ethnicity can be defined many different ways since it is more human construct than scientific fact. If there are people who self-identify as white, than that's proof enough that "white people" can be considered an ethnicity. Applacians could be considered a sub-group of "white people" or an entirely separate ethnicity altogether. It's really their place to decide for themselves because it is so subjective.


LOL, man, you are wiggling like a worm on the end of a hook. Of course you did not say there is no such thing as "white" people in so many words. However, what you have just said here and in an earlier post, shows the crappola you are trying to sling. In one post you tell us about what "white" men have received based on their race. Now you are telling us Applacians can decide for themselves what their ethnicity is? Puh-leeze. You have argued yourself into a corner, of course with the way greased by me. :icon_smile_big:



omairp said:


> I never said "Asian" is a more appropriate term, nor did I say that *all* people find the term "oriental" offensive. The term Asian bugs me too because depending on who says it, it can either be defined to include me or exclude me as a Pakistani.


No, you did not say "Asian" was more appropriate, nor did I say you said *all* people find the term "oriental" offensive, so I have no idea why you raise that issue. Straw man? However, what you did was the usual sophistry of a liberal and criticize without offering an alternative. You told me how "some" people find the term "Oriental", with reference to skin colour (code for racism usually with liberals) and offered no better alternative. And now we find you are Pakistani. Interesting, last we heard you were British. But living in Canada. Do you mean to say you are a British citizen of Pakistani descent that has emigrated to Canada? 

And then you pass off addressing the actual discrimination that is being placed on a very small minority through affirmative action. A very cowardly way to argue *for something* if you ask me, not to address wrongs occurring for a policy you are pushing.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I wish you candians would spell Appalachians correctly.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

omairp said:


> Perhaps white people haven't had any unfair advantages for the last 2 generations, but affirmative action proponents argue that the effects of racial discrimination are cumulative, and that people today are still feeling the effects of racism from several generations ago. _*For example,*_ African-Americans went from slaves to second class citizens to just plain citizens. But still its no secret there are ghettos filled with black people who have been there for generations because poverty tends to be a vicious cycle.
> 
> The idea of giving everyone the exact same treatment with no regard to their background works pefectly if everyone has a perfectly equal starting position in life, but that's not the case.
> 
> So what is your proposed alternative to affirmative action?


You really need to visit West Virginia, eastern KY, SE Ohio etc...

WHy are these people forgotten...


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> And now we find you are Pakistani. Interesting, last we heard you were British. But living in Canada. Do you mean to say you are a British citizen of Pakistani descent that has emigrated to Canada?


Not quite, I was born in Canada. You can find out all the juicy details in 50 years or so if there's a 60 Minutes profile on me or a E! True Hollywood Story. I'm just an International Man of Mystery :icon_smile:

You didn't think Omair was an anglo name, did you?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

JRR said:


> You really need to visit West Virginia, eastern KY, SE Ohio etc...
> 
> WHy are these people forgotten...


You can add southern IL and MO to the list as well. The areas where the mines and factories have closed are very poor.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

OmairP, your new here so you didn't know, when coming upon a Affirmative Action thread never comment in it, like most of the discussion here it isn't had for education Best your going to get the site's, committee against the defamation of the white man and double standards.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Okay, fellow white guys, let's round up the posse - - - -

Actually, that was a bit mean. Pierpont is right that not a lot of people who have different viewpoints from the majority do not post much. 

(I confess that I believe affirmative action is probably necessary under certain conditions, but really should be a last resort and a short term one. We really need to fix public education so that people have a legitimate chance to compete no matter from where they graduate.) 

Under those conditions, I would usually be against affirmative action.

(Egad, I usually take pride in my grammar and spelling, and this post was atrocious before I proofed it. Thank God I didn't hit post as fast as I usually do. Maybe I need to make sure my own education was adequate!)


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I confess that I believe affirmative action is probably necessary under certain conditions, but really should be a last resort and a short term one. We really need to fix public education so that people have a legitimate chance to compete no matter from where they graduate.


Wow. You nailed it. :idea:


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> OmairP, your new here so you didn't know, when coming upon a Affirmative Action thread never comment in it, like most of the discussion here it isn't had for education Best your going to get the site's, committee against the defamation of the white man and double standards.


JP,

This is BS. Omair's thesis is that AA is to correct past wrongs against certain ethnic groups. I would argue that today it is mainly a feel good measure by liberals.

My background has both Italian, and hillbilly/Applachian white...
Both were discriminated against in US History. Why shouldn't people with this ethnic background get AA???

Also, Asian American have been grossly discriminated against in US history...Why do Asian not receive full AA benefits in many instances???

But the middle class black/latino gets full benefit with college admission, jobs etc...

If you want an econ/income based AA, fine, I could support that. Don't have much respect for slacker trust fund babies.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

However, in America, a lot of people on the left side of the political equation want to keep the status quo, so they can use the education system to advance their political agenda and keep a system that frequently results in bloated bureaucracies and poor performance.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> We really need to fix public education so that people have a legitimate chance to compete no matter from where they graduate.)


Most of the defects in public schools could be corrected by parents who actually cared about education. Most large cities in the U.S. spend very large amount of money on education per capita (of course, most of this gets fed to the bureaucracy). I'm no fan of the public school system - but a bigger problem than mediocre/bad teachers is parents (or more likely, parent) who don't get involved, themselves, in their child's education, don't read to them, or do things to stimulate the child's mind - they think it's sufficient to drop them in government schools. There's simply no culture of valuing education in some segments of society. Some poll came out in the last 2 weeks which indicated that 25% of American adults hadn't read a book in the last year - just what do you expect the public school to be able to do with the progeny of such people?

The schools can't rebuild a culture.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Rocker, you point out a huge part of the problem. There is a lot of irresponsible sex which leads to a lot of irresponsible parenting in our society.

(Is it that hard to use a condom or get the pill, for God's sake?)


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Rocker said:


> *Most of the defects in public schools could be corrected by parents who actually cared about education.* Most large cities in the U.S. spend very large amount of money on education per capita (of course, most of this gets fed to the bureaucracy). I'm no fan of the public school system - but a bigger problem than mediocre/bad teachers is parents (or more likely, parent) who don't get involved, themselves, in their child's education, don't read to them, or do things to stimulate the child's mind - they think it's sufficient to drop them in government schools. There's simply no culture of valuing education in some segments of society. Some poll came out in the last 2 weeks which indicated that 25% of American adults hadn't read a book in the last year - just what do you expect the public school to be able to do with the progeny of such people?
> 
> The schools can't rebuild a culture.


+1 The teachers can only do so much. It is then up to the parent and child.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You really could not get things more back-asswards if you tried. My Japanese/Chinese wife just hates to be called "Asian". She much prefers "Oriental" as that conveys origins from a specific part of Asia, vs. "Asian" that can actually do what you are stating, i.e. lumping many different ethnicities together, from Viet Nam to Pakistan. So I hope you will excuse me if I honour the request of someone that is actually of the background in question? Damn, do you not just hate it when the real deal bites PC in the arse?


 I'm not exactly sure just where your wife is coming from on this; she certainly begs the question of just where "oriental" points to. Historically, the term referred to everywhere east of Europe, including European Russia. It is even less place-specific that "Asian".

Most of my acquaintances from China, Japan, etc., including, among others, my step-granddaughter-in-law, who is Japanese, and particularly those who live in the US, have an extreme dislike for the term "oriental", stemming as it does from an anglo-centric colonial (is that redundant?) view of the world. Rather than getting things "back-asswards" as you call it, perhaps we should just say that there are differing views of what "they" wish to be called.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

JRR said:


> JP,
> 
> This is BS. Omair's thesis is that AA is to correct past wrongs against certain ethnic groups. I would argue that today it is mainly a feel good measure by liberals.
> 
> ...


The squeeky wheel gets the grease.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Rocker, you point out a huge part of the problem. There is a lot of irresponsible sex which leads to a lot of irresponsible parenting in our society.
> 
> (Is it that hard to use a condom or get the pill, for God's sake?)


Isn't "_abstinence only_" very high, if not exclusively on the right-wing's sex-education pedagogy?

*"UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM - MINORITY STAFF
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
DECEMBER 2004*_

Under the Bush Administration, federal support for "abstinence-only" education
programs has expanded rapidly. The federal government will spend
approximately $170 million on abstinence-only education programs in fiscal year
2005, more than twice the amount spent in fiscal year 2001. As a result,
abstinence-only education, which promotes abstinence from sexual activity
without teaching basic facts about contraception, now reaches millions of children
and adolescents each year"._


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

rip said:


> Isn't "_abstinence only_" very high, if not exclusively on the right-wing's sex-education pedagogy?


Yeah - real good - because the "progressives" have done so much good for society with their sex education and condom distributions over the past 40 yeas - you know, aside from the fact that illegitimacy rates have skyrocketed since then, STDs have skyrocketed (and some new ones mutated), and 40 million babies have been aborted - not to mention all the related social and econonmic costs associated with the aforementioned.

You know, there was a period in our history (not so long ago), when the overwhelmingly vast majority of people were capable of exercising their sexual desires in a responsible way and in a lot of cases, that meant absitnence - it's not unheard of.

As a bastard child of the summer of love (who, fortunately, was born 5 years prior to Roe v. Wade), I wish my biological mother and father had exercised a little more restraint - and abstained.

They've been teaching sex ed in schools for many, many decades, and all the problems it was supposed to address and correct have only been exacerbated and increased.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Rocker said:


> Yeah - real good - because the "progressives" have done so much good for society with their sex education and condom distributions over the past 40 yeas - you know, aside from the fact that illegitimacy rates have skyrocketed since then, STDs have skyrocketed (and some new ones mutated), and 40 million babies have been aborted - not to mention all the related social and econonmic costs associated with the aforementioned.
> 
> You know, there was a period in our history (not so long ago), when the overwhelmingly vast majority of people were capable of exercising their sexual desires in a responsible way and in a lot of cases, that meant absitnence - it's not unheard of.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, this is an area where "blame the progressives, yet again", just doesn't wash. You're making several assertions for which you should provide some factual data. For instance, I grew up in that "period in our history" you speak of. And when I graduated from high school in the early 1950s, a significant proportion of our graduating girls were pregnant.

Illegitimacy rates skyrocketing? According to the House Ways and Means commitee, as a percentage of unmarried women age 15-44, since 1990, births to unwed women have remained between 4.38% and 4.69%, with the peak, 4.69% occuring in 1994, and constantly declining since then to 4.36% in 2002 (I don't have figures post 2002, but even a 1-2% increase, extremely unlikely based on the historical data, would hardly constitute a "skyrocketing" increase. Is it too high? Of course it is. 44 women out of every 1000 having an illegitimate child, a "bastard" as you so delicately put it, is far too many.

You might also want to read the current studies on the failures of "abstinence only" education after a period of time:

Is there a problem here? There certainly is, and no one has yet to come up with a viable program that actually works over time, not the progressives, not the conservatives, and it's far too easy to work on who's to blame rather than who's got an idea that might work. What's your solution?

I certainly don't have the answer. I think part, perhaps much of the problem lies with the continued and increasing devaluation of life in our culture. It may seem almost contradictory to equate a lack of value about life with the creation of life, but think about it: the less concerned one is about life, the less concerned one is likely to be about the life that might be created through casual sex, and certainly less concerned about the life of one's sex partner, which includes the effect of pregnancy, of STDs, etc.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Rip, YOU are putting me in the right wing. Whatever you want to do, man. It looks like a way to avoid arguing by tarring the messenger. Again, whatever you want to do.

I have never posted anything here or anyplace else advocating "abstinence only" sex education. However, if people are going to "do what feels good", I do feel they have an obligation not to burden society with unwanted babies that they cannot or will not properly parent. This goes for rich playboys as well as the people you want to accuse me of targeting.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> I'm not exactly sure just where your wife is coming from on this; she certainly begs the question of just where "oriental" points to. Historically, the term referred to everywhere east of Europe, including European Russia. It is even less place-specific that "Asian".
> 
> Most of my acquaintances from China, Japan, etc., including, among others, my step-granddaughter-in-law, who is Japanese, and particularly those who live in the US, have an extreme dislike for the term "oriental", stemming as it does from an anglo-centric colonial (is that redundant?) view of the world. Rather than getting things "back-asswards" as you call it, perhaps we should just say that there are differing views of what "they" wish to be called.


I would have to disagree with your first point. To my knowledge, "Oriental" is a bio-geographic area that is limited to certain areas of Asia. Asian however, would of course cover all of Asia, an area with a great many more phenotypes. I suppose you could try and disprove me with something such as "***" standing for "Western Oriental Person", but I am not sure I would by into that word etiology.

I would agree with your second part, that different people have different preferences in word use. From my POV, much of it is driven though semantically created distinctions to foster feelings of "the other", but like I said, that's just my POV. Unlike many people on both sides of the political divide, I do not speak about "diversity" and such things from a removed position, I actually live it daily...and am much better off for it.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

rip said:


> Illegitimacy rates skyrocketing? According to the House Ways and Means commitee, as a percentage of unmarried women age 15-44, since 1990, births to unwed women have remained between 4.38% and 4.69%, with the peak, 4.69% occuring in 1994, and constantly declining since then to 4.36% in 2002 (I don't have figures post 2002, but even a 1-2% increase, extremely unlikely based on the historical data, would hardly constitute a "skyrocketing" increase. Is it too high? Of course it is. 44 women out of every 1000 having an illegitimate child, a "bastard" as you so delicately put it, is far too many.


Yes, thank goodness for abortion and its ability to mitigate the statistics on live births to single women. You realize that the moderation of those statistics is purchased at the price of about a million abortions, right? You didn't address STDs or abortion numbers - I note.

I stand by my points - nothing has improved from all the "education." Now I don't really advocate abstinence only, but your smarmy "right wing" quip was uncalled for. With respect to "studies" about abstinence education so what - the alternative isn't working either. I would think abstinence programs wouldn't be too likely to work as just about every form of media out there is telling people to [email protected] I've received two emails in my work email filter today promising me that I can increase my "load" and another one promising me horny Russian teenagers. It's all become so mainstream, that we have happy couples discussing the efficaciousness of their genital wart treatments on TV (or whatever kind of STD it is) and bunch of 50 year old men singing some yahoo song celebrating their respective ability to maintain an erection.

I'm so sorry about your sensitivity about the word bastard - it's a fine word and should be brought back along with illegitimate. Your sex education programs don't work - maybe we should go try to go back to establishing a sense of social shame for being irresponsible.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Maybe if sex-ed pushed just doing Lewinskies, the pregnancy rate would drop?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I dunno...I think it's probably just a matter of PC run amuck (sp?)...I usually say "Asian", just because there are, indeed, people who would get offended by the term "Oriental", yet, then again, I've also known Asians that refer to themselves and other Asians as "Oriental"...I don't think there's such a definate line painted around the use of the word Oriental as there is around ones like "*****" or "Colored" which have condescending undertones, and are border-line racial slurs...I remember this one ******* guy came into the hospital one time and started refering to one of my Latin co-workers as "that colored gal"...it was really kind of gross...

Then again, only speaking for myself here, I know in the Hispanic community, the one that always sets people off is "Mexican"...now, for the most part I'm very cool when it comes to race etc...but that one kind of sets me off when somebody just assumes that if a person is Latin they are Mexican...not that I have any problems with Mexicans, but there is a world of difference between a Mexican and a Cuban...you can call me a "*****", or a "******", or whatever (I think somewhere in Fla they refer to Cubans as turtles or something), and for the most part (as long as it isnt done in a malicious fashion), I'll be cool...but calling me a Mexican would be the same thing as if I called a white guy from France an Australian...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> .now, for the most part I'm very cool when it comes to race etc...but that one kind of sets me off when somebody just assumes that if a person is Latin they are Mexican...not that I have any problems with Mexicans, but there is a world of difference between a Mexican and a Cuban...you can call me a "*****", or a "******", or whatever (I think somewhere in Fla they refer to Cubans as turtles or something), and for the most part (as long as it isnt done in a malicious fashion), I'll be cool...but calling me a Mexican would be the same thing as if I called a white guy from France an Australian...


Woah! Hold it right there! The French are "white"?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Rocker said:


> Yes, thank goodness for abortion and its ability to mitigate the statistics on live births to single women. You realize that the moderation of those statistics is purchased at the price of about a million abortions, right? You didn't address STDs or abortion numbers - I note.
> 
> I stand by my points - nothing has improved from all the "education." Now I don't really advocate abstinence only, but your smarmy "right wing" quip was uncalled for. With respect to "studies" about abstinence education so what - the alternative isn't working either. I would think abstinence programs wouldn't be too likely to work as just about every form of media out there is telling people to [email protected] I've received two emails in my work email filter today promising me that I can increase my "load" and another one promising me horny Russian teenagers. It's all become so mainstream, that we have happy couples discussing the efficaciousness of their genital wart treatments on TV (or whatever kind of STD it is) and bunch of 50 year old men singing some yahoo song celebrating their respective ability to maintain an erection.
> 
> I'm so sorry about your sensitivity about the word bastard - it's a fine word and should be brought back along with illegitimate. Your sex education programs don't work - maybe we should go try to go back to establishing a sense of social shame for being irresponsible.


Re-read my post. You're still thowing out assertions without data, which was the primary thrust of my post. I provided refutations with supporting data. If you disagree, give us the numbers rather than just making these empty (as in devoid of supporting content) assertions or just saying, "so what", which is really not much of an argument. BTW, Though you say "my sex education programs" aren't working, I have to point out that I don't have a sex-ed program; As a matter of factall the current and past ones seem not to work, and, if you had bothered to follow the links, you would see that I also provided the data to supports.

You seem to imply I'm pro-abortion; again, if you would read what I said about devaluing life as a major cause. Now please try to make some connection between that statement and where I just might stand on the issue of abortion.

You point to irresponsibility as a root cause. I agree it is a major issue, but I think it is a symptom rather than a cause (please refer back to my statement on devaluing life), and I'm pretty sure it's not just their irresponsibility. I think the entire society needs to bear that rather equally. I'm not sure where one begins to generate social "shame" for this; I would want to find another word (and concept) in place of shame (perhaps contempt). I know professionally that shame and humiliation rarely have a beneficial effect and, in fact, their demeaning effect is frequently an (not the) underlying cause of the ills we're discussing.

Does the media play a role in this? Certainly, but it's all too easy to scapegoat the media, and in so doing, grant to them a power they have only in the absence of opposing thought and, and this is a big AND, take the finger off of us.

Again, if you are going to really discuss this matter, put your numbers where your mouth is.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I would have to disagree with your first point. To my knowledge, "Oriental" is a bio-geographic area that is limited to certain areas of Asia. Asian however, would of course cover all of Asia, an area with a great many more phenotypes. I suppose you could try and disprove me with something such as "***" standing for "Western Oriental Person", but I am not sure I would by into that word etiology.


 The origin of the discomfort about the word "oriental" was, perhaps still is, that it simply described somewhere east of here, here (the desired place, or home) being England and Europe, and then America. Here's a quote from The Random House Dictionary,

"_USAGE NOTE Asian is now strongly preferred in place of Oriental for persons native to Asia or descended from an Asian people. The usual objection to Oriental-meaning "eastern"-is that it identifies Asian countries and peoples in terms of their location relative to Europe. However, this objection is not generally made of other Eurocentric terms such as Near and Middle Eastern. The real problem with Oriental is more likely its connotations stemming from an earlier era when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires and inscrutable customs. At the least these associations can give Oriental a dated feel, and as a noun in contemporary contexts (as in the first Oriental to be elected from the district) it is now widely taken to be offensive. However, Oriental should not be thought of as an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. As with Asiatic, its use other than as an ethnonym, in phrases such as Oriental cuisine or Oriental medicine, is not usually considered objectionable."
_



> I would agree with your second part, that different people have different preferences in word use. From my POV, much of it is driven though semantically created distinctions to foster feelings of "the other", but like I said, that's just my POV. Unlike many people on both sides of the political divide, I do not speak about "diversity" and such things from a removed position, I actually live it daily...and am much better off for it.


 I'm in total agreement with this part of your post and, like you, have lived it daily; my first wife was Mexican, my daughter-in-law is Mexican and therefore two of my grandchildren are half-Mexican (or hispanic or latino, if you will), my step-granddaughter-in-law is Japanese, my granddaughter's husband is ethnic Russian from Kazakhstan, their soon-to-be-born son will also be an ethnic mix and my current girlfriend is Jewish from the Czech Republic. And they all have or had their own ethnic sensibilities about the language used to describe them, and sometimes it's crazy-making! The only one who seems to have totally risen above this is my grandson-in-law who absolutely loves the movie "Borat". As we would say in Brooklyn (talk about your ethnic diversity!), "go figure".


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Yeah - real good - because the "progressives" have done so much good for society with their sex education


Why do people expect schools to teach their kids morality for them? Isn't it the parents responsibility to impart values on their kids?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

rip said:


> Re-read my post. You're still thowing out assertions without data, which was the primary thrust of my post. I provided refutations with supporting data. If you disagree, give us the numbers rather than just making these empty (as in devoid of supporting content) assertions or just saying, "so what", which is really not much of an argument. BTW, Though you say "my sex education programs" aren't working, I have to point out that I don't have a sex-ed program; As a matter of factall the current and past ones seem not to work, and, if you had bothered to follow the links, you would see that I also provided the data to supports.
> 
> You seem to imply I'm pro-abortion; again, if you would read what I said about devaluing life as a major cause. Now please try to make some connection between that statement and where I just might stand on the issue of abortion.
> 
> ...


If you really think citing single births since 1990 refutes my point - go back to school. I don't have the time to point out the obvious to the oblivious. Why don't you pull data from the years you went to high school to date and see the increase - compare any decade prior to 1970 to the current rate. You deliberately started with a data set that was skewed - either you're naive or disingenuous - I think the latter and I don't have the time or patience to play games with people who try to deceive and think they're being clever.

You did not provide refutations - you provided a single, bogus, alleged refutation.

You then went on to set up a straw man argument which reflects your shabby thinking. I didn't imply you were pro abortion. I simply stated statistics on single mothers from circa 1990 aren't analogous to single mother statistics from say 1960 or 1950 ( which you didn't brother to look at because you know what it shows) because - although there is a tremendous increase from 1950 to 1990, the scale of the increase is hidden by the fact that there were many more abortions occurring in 1990 than 1950.

I'm not going to do your homework for you - go Google "single mothers" "U.S." historic" and look it up for yourself.

I'm sure you're a real touchy, feely, guy - maybe "in touch with yourself" and read of the most recent psychological clap trap - but the fact, is shame and social stigma used to play a significant role in controlling people's behavior and society as whole was better off for it. You strike me as they type that's more concerned about peoples' "self esteem" and "sefl worth".

I didn't point to the media as a scapegoat - is email the "media"? I pointed to the email as an indicator of the general acceptance of that kind of smut and its pervasiveness.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

omairp said:


> Why do people expect schools to teach their kids morality for them? Isn't it the parents responsibility to impart values on their kids?


I don't (generally) and I have no idea how you could have deduced that from anything I wrote.

That being said, what you stated is more than simple minded - you don't think school can and should teach students not to lie, not to steal, to share with others, to be respectful of others, etc.? Are these not forms of morality albeit ones even secularists can probably agree upon?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Rocker said:


> If you really think citing single births since 1990 refutes my point - go back to school. I don't have the time to point out the obvious to the oblivious. Why don't you pull data from the years you went to high school to date and see the increase - compare any decade prior to 1970 to the current rate. You deliberately started with a data set that was skewed - either you're naive or disingenuous - I think the latter and I don't have the time or patience to play games with people who try to deceive and think they're being clever.
> 
> You did not provide refutations - you provided a single, bogus, alleged refutation.
> 
> ...


It's not worth my energy trying to reply to you. You simply don't know how to read, nor to understand. I can't change the mind of the mindless.


----------



## riveroaks (Jan 1, 2007)

Kav;609854blah blah...people.[/quote said:


> Kav - you seem to have an interesting perspective but it's too hard to read let alone understand. Paragraphs would be a good start.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Rocker said:


> you don't think school can and should teach students not to lie, not to steal, to share with others, to be respectful of others, etc.? Are these not forms of morality albeit ones even secularists can probably agree upon?


Well firstly, I wasn't responding to your remark in specific, but rather this whole debate about what kind of is sex-ed should be taught in schools.

Schools can help in teaching these values, but the parents have primary responsibility for instilling the right moral values in their children. An actively involved parent will have far more influence on their kids behavior than a school teacher who taught a kid for a single school year will. Parents have to be responsible for raising their kids right. 50 years ago it wasn't the type of schooling kids received that prevented unplanned pregnancies and the spread of STD's, it was pervasive societal values. Nowadays, we don't have that luxury, but the people most in a position to instill lasting values in their children are parents.


----------

