Affirmative Action should be income-based, not race-based

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. Apparently, just too tired to post coherently.

"But you are focused on just one group who may be displacing marginal college applicants. What about other URMs? What about college athletes? What about legacy kids?

It's very telling that you are only focused on this one particular group."

would definitely like doctors, airline pilots etc to meet the same set qualifications. If not to enter, at least to graduate? I hope none of that is a moveable goal post?

What makes you think they aren't "qualified" to enter?

And, yes, everyone should pass the same graduation requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish liberals would stop this disgraceful havit of calling everyone a racist or bigot. There is absolutely nothing bigoted about pointing out that white applicants with a 3.8 GPA get rejected from institutions that accept black applicants with a 3.2 GPA (as published data clearly shows) and to discuss the inequity in this situation. It is clearly racist to discriminate based in skin color, which is what these institutions are doing.

What’s the right term for thinking blacks are out to take what you think you’re entitled to?

NOBODY is entitled to anything. Let the students compete, and the ones with the best grades and test scores get in, with "bonus" points for those from poor backgrounds. But skin color should not be a factor.

You act as if blacks are ENTITLED to get into to med school regardless of how much lower than grades/scores are compared to whites.

You assume that white applicants are being rejected for lesser qualified minorities. Absurd!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish liberals would stop this disgraceful havit of calling everyone a racist or bigot. There is absolutely nothing bigoted about pointing out that white applicants with a 3.8 GPA get rejected from institutions that accept black applicants with a 3.2 GPA (as published data clearly shows) and to discuss the inequity in this situation. It is clearly racist to discriminate based in skin color, which is what these institutions are doing.

What’s the right term for thinking blacks are out to take what you think you’re entitled to?

NOBODY is entitled to anything. Let the students compete, and the ones with the best grades and test scores get in, with "bonus" points for those from poor backgrounds. But skin color should not be a factor.

You act as if blacks are ENTITLED to get into to med school regardless of how much lower than grades/scores are compared to whites.

Why shouldn’t race be a factor?

Please provide facts that show that there is a level playing ground for all races.
Because the disadvantage comes from a poor background, with uneducated parents, not race per se. You honestly think Susie Black, whose college-educated parents sent her to private school and paid for a tutor, should get accepted over Billy White, who despite having parents with high school diplomas, managed to get better grades and test scores?

The determining factor should be SES. NOt skin color.

That doesn't demonstrate a level-playing ground.

Let's say Daeshanda Jackson is applying for the same job as Timothy Smithfield III. Who do you think is more likely to get the call back?

Maybe Ms. Jackson needs that Harvard on her resume a little more than Mr. Smithfield.

OK.....now please concentrate:

Under an SES-based AA policy, Daeshanda (assuming she is from a modest background) will STILL get preferential treatment over his Majesty, Mr. III.

But what about if Daeshanda is the daughter of a lawyer and a dentist, and she has a 3.2 GPA as she applies to Med school. (Unless with your liberal bigotry, you are assuming that someone named Daeshanda is poor?) Also competing is Billy, whose parents have a high school education, and thus he had to work 20 hours a week all through college to help pay the bills. Despite that, he has a 3.7 GPA. There's one spot remaining, and due to AA, Daeshanda gets it. BIlly, despite applying throughout the country, can't get admitted, and he has to lower his expectations and go back to school for a nursing certificate. Is that fair? Why should rich Daeshanda get in, with lower scores, athan the poor whites boy?

YOU want to see admissions decisions based on skin color, and I want to make decisions race-blind and allot a special leg up to those who, through challenging economic circumstances, still were able to achieve academically. If you would take off your blinders, you would realize that such a policy would still favor black kids, as black families are (on average) significantly poorer than white families.

OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish liberals would stop this disgraceful havit of calling everyone a racist or bigot. There is absolutely nothing bigoted about pointing out that white applicants with a 3.8 GPA get rejected from institutions that accept black applicants with a 3.2 GPA (as published data clearly shows) and to discuss the inequity in this situation. It is clearly racist to discriminate based in skin color, which is what these institutions are doing.

What’s the right term for thinking blacks are out to take what you think you’re entitled to?

NOBODY is entitled to anything. Let the students compete, and the ones with the best grades and test scores get in, with "bonus" points for those from poor backgrounds. But skin color should not be a factor.

You act as if blacks are ENTITLED to get into to med school regardless of how much lower than grades/scores are compared to whites.

You assume that white applicants are being rejected for lesser qualified minorities. Absurd!!

i
OF course they are! The data all show it.

What is absurd is that you will fight to the death to maintain AA policies that favor blacks, and then deny that whites are rejected in favor of blacks.

[Anonymous]

What makes you people so sure your kid would have been next on the list? At the cut line, there are hundreds of applicants who are very close in qualifications. None of them are undeserving but none of them are entitled to a spot either. There are other schools and if your kid is all you think he/she is, he/she will do well with a degree from any of them. It’s only the parents who can’t imagine life without Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish liberals would stop this disgraceful havit of calling everyone a racist or bigot. There is absolutely nothing bigoted about pointing out that white applicants with a 3.8 GPA get rejected from institutions that accept black applicants with a 3.2 GPA (as published data clearly shows) and to discuss the inequity in this situation. It is clearly racist to discriminate based in skin color, which is what these institutions are doing.

What’s the right term for thinking blacks are out to take what you think you’re entitled to?

NOBODY is entitled to anything. Let the students compete, and the ones with the best grades and test scores get in, with "bonus" points for those from poor backgrounds. But skin color should not be a factor.

You act as if blacks are ENTITLED to get into to med school regardless of how much lower than grades/scores are compared to whites.

Why shouldn’t race be a factor?

Please provide facts that show that there is a level playing ground for all races.
Because the disadvantage comes from a poor background, with uneducated parents, not race per se. You honestly think Susie Black, whose college-educated parents sent her to private school and paid for a tutor, should get accepted over Billy White, who despite having parents with high school diplomas, managed to get better grades and test scores?

The determining factor should be SES. NOt skin color.

That doesn't demonstrate a level-playing ground.

Let's say Daeshanda Jackson is applying for the same job as Timothy Smithfield III. Who do you think is more likely to get the call back?

Maybe Ms. Jackson needs that Harvard on her resume a little more than Mr. Smithfield.

OK.....now please concentrate:

Under an SES-based AA policy, Daeshanda (assuming she is from a modest background) will STILL get preferential treatment over his Majesty, Mr. III.

But what about if Daeshanda is the daughter of a lawyer and a dentist, and she has a 3.2 GPA as she applies to Med school. (Unless with your liberal bigotry, you are assuming that someone named Daeshanda is poor?) Also competing is Billy, whose parents have a high school education, and thus he had to work 20 hours a week all through college to help pay the bills. Despite that, he has a 3.7 GPA. There's one spot remaining, and due to AA, Daeshanda gets it. BIlly, despite applying throughout the country, can't get admitted, and he has to lower his expectations and go back to school for a nursing certificate. Is that fair? Why should rich Daeshanda get in, with lower scores, athan the poor whites boy?

YOU want to see admissions decisions based on skin color, and I want to make decisions race-blind and allot a special leg up to those who, through challenging economic circumstances, still were able to achieve academically. If you would take off your blinders, you would realize that such a policy would still favor black kids, as black families are (on average) significantly poorer than white families.

OP

I was continuing with the earlier scenario and assuming that Ms. Jackson was the DD of professionals and Mr. Smithfield was the DS of blue collar workers. She still has a tougher time sending in a resume. Mr. Smithfield automatically has an advantage in the working world.

Until we have a level playing field we need AA to include race. I agree we could add a SES component too though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What makes you people so sure your kid would have been next on the list? At the cut line, there are hundreds of applicants who are very close in qualifications. None of them are undeserving but none of them are entitled to a spot either. There are other schools and if your kid is all you think he/she is, he/she will do well with a degree from any of them. It’s only the parents who can’t imagine life without Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Stanford.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Again, you are focused on just one group who may be displacing marginal college applicants. What about other URMs? What about college athletes? What about legacy kids?

Still waiting to hear why you are so focused on one particular group who is "displacing white guys"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish liberals would stop this disgraceful havit of calling everyone a racist or bigot. There is absolutely nothing bigoted about pointing out that white applicants with a 3.8 GPA get rejected from institutions that accept black applicants with a 3.2 GPA (as published data clearly shows) and to discuss the inequity in this situation. It is clearly racist to discriminate based in skin color, which is what these institutions are doing.

What’s the right term for thinking blacks are out to take what you think you’re entitled to?

NOBODY is entitled to anything. Let the students compete, and the ones with the best grades and test scores get in, with "bonus" points for those from poor backgrounds. But skin color should not be a factor.

You act as if blacks are ENTITLED to get into to med school regardless of how much lower than grades/scores are compared to whites.

You assume that white applicants are being rejected for lesser qualified minorities. Absurd!!

i
OF course they are! The data all show it.

What is absurd is that you will fight to the death to maintain AA policies that favor blacks, and then deny that whites are rejected in favor of blacks.

Not PP, but is a 3.2 really not qualified compared to a 3.8? What is the cut-off line for "being qualified"?

[Anonymous]

Daeshanda is going to be discriminated against by white people all her life because of her name. Some of them will see her name, go straight to their stereotype and trash her resume without giving her education or qualifications any consideration. Nobody is ever going to do that to Billy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What makes you people so sure your kid would have been next on the list? At the cut line, there are hundreds of applicants who are very close in qualifications. None of them are undeserving but none of them are entitled to a spot either. There are other schools and if your kid is all you think he/she is, he/she will do well with a degree from any of them. It’s only the parents who can’t imagine life without Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Stanford.

First, there's no "my kid." Why are liberals so selfish as to think that posters would only object to the unfair AA policies if it impacted them personally, and not because they see the blatant inequity in depriving bright, hard-working, and motivated poor WHITE kids in favor of black kids, many of who are middle class, with lower grades?

And there's that liberal shrug-off where poor whites are concerned (albeit not as bad as the posters who referred to "white trash" and said that A- white kids can "just go to community college"). You talk with disdain about white parents who can't imagine life without Harvard or Yale, but couldn't the same be said for the parents of black kids? Why not acknowledge that the lesser-scoring black kid can do well in any of the other schools you say the white kids can go to?

For a black kid from a poor background, who despite the hardships of his or her early life, manages to squeak out a B average, it will be a life-changing experience to get a college degree from the state university. Why do liberals insist that a white kid from a poor background, with an A average, has to be the one to go to State U when his shining record would otherwise get him a spot in Stanford, or Yale, or Princeton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish liberals would stop this disgraceful havit of calling everyone a racist or bigot. There is absolutely nothing bigoted about pointing out that white applicants with a 3.8 GPA get rejected from institutions that accept black applicants with a 3.2 GPA (as published data clearly shows) and to discuss the inequity in this situation. It is clearly racist to discriminate based in skin color, which is what these institutions are doing.

What’s the right term for thinking blacks are out to take what you think you’re entitled to?

NOBODY is entitled to anything. Let the students compete, and the ones with the best grades and test scores get in, with "bonus" points for those from poor backgrounds. But skin color should not be a factor.

You act as if blacks are ENTITLED to get into to med school regardless of how much lower than grades/scores are compared to whites.

You assume that white applicants are being rejected for lesser qualified minorities. Absurd!!

i
OF course they are! The data all show it.

What is absurd is that you will fight to the death to maintain AA policies that favor blacks, and then deny that whites are rejected in favor of blacks.

+1.

To be precise, it is whites and Asians being rejected in favor of blacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Daeshanda is going to be discriminated against by white people all her life because of her name. Some of them will see her name, go straight to their stereotype and trash her resume without giving her education or qualifications any consideration. Nobody is ever going to do that to Billy.

How do you know? I see all sorts of preferences going to black candidates in jobs, as well, and promotions too. I even worked in an organization where the HR director screened applications FOR black-sounding names. She even called the government to see if it was legal to REQUIRE applicants to divulge their race (so she could more easily identify the black candidates to interview). In another place I worked, I competed directly with another candidate for a promotion - one with less seniority and a substantially "lesser" education - and she told me, point-blank, that she would be selected because of her race. (She was.) In still another case, my friend with a graduate degree was passed over for a black woman with a high school diploma. (She worked for a fed government agency in Baltimore, with a very high population of black workers.) Another friend, supporting four children on her own, was passed over for a promotion for a black woman who had just been hired 6 months before. There are countless organizations that favor blacks and minorities to show how "woke" they are.

But that's not what we're discussing here. We are discussing why liberals are so willing to keep deserving poor white kids out of good universities (eh..."let them go to community college") so that less accomplished black kids can go. WHY do liberals defend black kids (even when they're from middle-class and upper-middle class families) as deserving special advantages while they are so willing to reveal disdain toward the poor whites whose chance out of the slums is a college degree (and who worked day and night to get good grades to go)?

This anti-white bias from liberals will cost you the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes you people so sure your kid would have been next on the list? At the cut line, there are hundreds of applicants who are very close in qualifications. None of them are undeserving but none of them are entitled to a spot either. There are other schools and if your kid is all you think he/she is, he/she will do well with a degree from any of them. It’s only the parents who can’t imagine life without Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Stanford.

First, there's no "my kid." Why are liberals so selfish as to think that posters would only object to the unfair AA policies if it impacted them personally, and not because they see the blatant inequity in depriving bright, hard-working, and motivated poor WHITE kids in favor of black kids, many of who are middle class, with lower grades?

And there's that liberal shrug-off where poor whites are concerned (albeit not as bad as the posters who referred to "white trash" and said that A- white kids can "just go to community college"). You talk with disdain about white parents who can't imagine life without Harvard or Yale, but couldn't the same be said for the parents of black kids? Why not acknowledge that the lesser-scoring black kid can do well in any of the other schools you say the white kids can go to?

For a black kid from a poor background, who despite the hardships of his or her early life, manages to squeak out a B average, it will be a life-changing experience to get a college degree from the state university. Why do liberals insist that a white kid from a poor background, with an A average, has to be the one to go to State U when his shining record would otherwise get him a spot in Stanford, or Yale, or Princeton?

Why do you only care about the WHITE kids? Don't you care about the URM families who would be impacted by removing AA?

Harvard/Yale does much more to help URM kids than it does for white kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daeshanda is going to be discriminated against by white people all her life because of her name. Some of them will see her name, go straight to their stereotype and trash her resume without giving her education or qualifications any consideration. Nobody is ever going to do that to Billy.

How do you know? I see all sorts of preferences going to black candidates in jobs, as well, and promotions too. I even worked in an organization where the HR director screened applications FOR black-sounding names. She even called the government to see if it was legal to REQUIRE applicants to divulge their race (so she could more easily identify the black candidates to interview). In another place I worked, I competed directly with another candidate for a promotion - one with less seniority and a substantially "lesser" education - and she told me, point-blank, that she would be selected because of her race. (She was.) In still another case, my friend with a graduate degree was passed over for a black woman with a high school diploma. (She worked for a fed government agency in Baltimore, with a very high population of black workers.) Another friend, supporting four children on her own, was passed over for a promotion for a black woman who had just been hired 6 months before. There are countless organizations that favor blacks and minorities to show how "woke" they are.

But that's not what we're discussing here. We are discussing why liberals are so willing to keep deserving poor white kids out of good universities (eh..."let them go to community college") so that less accomplished black kids can go. WHY do liberals defend black kids (even when they're from middle-class and upper-middle class families) as deserving special advantages while they are so willing to reveal disdain toward the poor whites whose chance out of the slums is a college degree (and who worked day and night to get good grades to go)?

This anti-white bias from liberals will cost you the election.

Why do you only care about BLACK kids? What about the other URMs/college athletes/legacies who "keep deserving WHITE kids out of good universities"?