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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also....you DCUM libs are just unbelievable. You seem to think that unless you have an IVY degree, your life will be a shambles.

I went to a non-Ivy, but still decent university, and then on to grad school (on my employer's dime). I had a successful and rewarding career, earning good but not astronomical money. MUST someone earn more than $150,000 to be considered a success in liberals' eyes? Wouldn't you say that a black high school kid with a B average, who then goes on to earn a (marketable) degree from the state university, and ultimately ends up earning around $120,000 is a success in life? Especially if they are good to family and friends, kind to animals, give back to their community, donate to charity, respect other people's property, and never hurt anyone?

You all are a bunch of liberal snobs.

The AA haters are the ones who think Billy is entitled to an Ivy League education. That he DESERVES it.

No. The ones who hate race-based AA realize that Billy, with his straight As, deserves to go to a more competitive college than Dashanda, with her Bs - especially if Billy came from a poor background and Dashanda came from a middle-class background.

Conversely, the AA supporters are the ones who think Dashanda is ENTITLED to push Billy, with his superior grades, over to community college so that she can get accepted due to her skin color, B average and all.

The vast majority of spots at competitive colleges will go to white kids. They will continue on their easy path of upward mobility. Why are you so focused on the handful of spots that go to URMs? What about other spots at those colleges that go to other kids with lesser grades? Don't hear you complaining once about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Yes. And what is so irking is that these bleeding-heart liberals who proclaim to "care about people" (as long as it's the skin color they favor) call other people racist for not giving preferential treatment to blacks with lesser qualifications - and then they demean poor whites as "white trash" and say "Billy can just got to community college."

Reverse that: Can you imagine if conservatives said that black kids can just go to community college? Or called them "black trash"?

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"?

First, plenty of black athletes in college - in fact, out of proportion to their numbers in the population. (You should have seen my college basketball team!) As far as legacies, it's about money and donations. Can't change that. We can, however, change a mindset that says poorer-scoring black kids are ENTITLED to take the spots of better-scoring white kids for no other reason than skin color.

So you are perfectly OK if the rich white kid "steals" Billy's seat, but not a MC black kid?

Got it.

[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.

Give me a break. Daeshanda has the almost-sure option of a federal job where hiring is clearly based on racial preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly.

Nobody ever said they were entitled. But in many cases their grades and scores would have taken them in that direction, but AA policies instead favored lower-scoring blacks. So why are black kids with lower grades ENTITLED? Any why can't the poorer-scoring black kids go to some other school? You people seem to be saying that 3rd tier universities are good enough for poor white Billy from the housing projects, even with his A- average, and yet Daeshanda should go to Ivy with her B+. Why not just turn it around: Let the better student go to the better school, and the so-so student go to the lesser university?

As soon as we have a level playing field that'd be fine. But today in 2019 we still have white supremacists proudly marching the streets. We have a POTUS who hesitates to disavow them. We have harsh backlash to BLM. We have people still worshipping Confederate war heros and the flag. We have systematic racism / implicit bias.

We are not ready for that. If a handful of white people have a slightly less optimal outcome? That's a price I'm willing to pay. Sorry, Billy.

I'm not going to argue with you about the POTUS disavowing the fringe element of white supremacists, since he clearly did that and you in your liberal fog refuse to acknowledge it.

But, to get this straight, you say that you are willing to send all the Billys (poor white kids from the housing projects who, despite their hardships, managed to get all As) to community college or a lesser school because that is a price YOU are willing to pay? Such a liberal. You guys are willing to pay for anything as long as it is not you personally paying the price. So generous.

All I can say is thank god that my parents went to college before AA was in effect. They both had after-school jobs that got that home at MIDNIGHT to help pay the family's bills, and still managed to ace their college admissions tests. I shudder to think how different their lives would have been if they had been shut out of college because Dashanda, who did much worse academically, was seen as deserving a chance - and the whites weren't.

[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.

Give me a break. Daeshanda has the almost-sure option of a federal job where hiring is clearly based on racial preferences.

And she'll never have to worry about being fired, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also....you DCUM libs are just unbelievable. You seem to think that unless you have an IVY degree, your life will be a shambles.

I went to a non-Ivy, but still decent university, and then on to grad school (on my employer's dime). I had a successful and rewarding career, earning good but not astronomical money. MUST someone earn more than $150,000 to be considered a success in liberals' eyes? Wouldn't you say that a black high school kid with a B average, who then goes on to earn a (marketable) degree from the state university, and ultimately ends up earning around $120,000 is a success in life? Especially if they are good to family and friends, kind to animals, give back to their community, donate to charity, respect other people's property, and never hurt anyone?

You all are a bunch of liberal snobs.

The AA haters are the ones who think Billy is entitled to an Ivy League education. That he DESERVES it.

No. The ones who hate race-based AA realize that Billy, with his straight As, deserves to go to a more competitive college than Dashanda, with her Bs - especially if Billy came from a poor background and Dashanda came from a middle-class background.

Conversely, the AA supporters are the ones who think Dashanda is ENTITLED to push Billy, with his superior grades, over to community college so that she can get accepted due to her skin color, B average and all.

+ a million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Yes. And what is so irking is that these bleeding-heart liberals who proclaim to "care about people" (as long as it's the skin color they favor) call other people racist for not giving preferential treatment to blacks with lesser qualifications - and then they demean poor whites as "white trash" and say "Billy can just got to community college."

Reverse that: Can you imagine if conservatives said that black kids can just go to community college? Or called them "black trash"?

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"?

First, plenty of black athletes in college - in fact, out of proportion to their numbers in the population. (You should have seen my college basketball team!) As far as legacies, it's about money and donations. Can't change that. We can, however, change a mindset that says poorer-scoring black kids are ENTITLED to take the spots of better-scoring white kids for no other reason than skin color.

So you are perfectly OK if the rich white kid "steals" Billy's seat, but not a MC black kid?

Got it.

I didn't say I was OK with it. I said that it can't be changed, due to money. (And again with the implied racism. Are you the racist who says poor whites can just go to community college?)

[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.

Give me a break. Daeshanda has the almost-sure option of a federal job where hiring is clearly based on racial preferences.

And they make up how many jobs? What % of all jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Give me a break. Daeshanda has the almost-sure option of a federal job where hiring is clearly based on racial preferences.

And they make up how many jobs? What % of all jobs?

Walk around any DC agency. The percentage of black employees is way overrepresented. They are ORM! And they can't get fired, either.

And don't even get me started on the DC government. Whitey don't got no chance of getting a stinkin' job there. Maybe a token once in a while, but a promotion? Naaaaa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Give me a break. Daeshanda has the almost-sure option of a federal job where hiring is clearly based on racial preferences.

And they make up how many jobs? What % of all jobs?

DP: you are exaggerating a bit too much...if the name Daeshanda is such an obstacle, she could just change it. Millions of immigrants do it, and they do very well despite the even more pronounced biases and obstacles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Give me a break. Daeshanda has the almost-sure option of a federal job where hiring is clearly based on racial preferences.

And they make up how many jobs? What % of all jobs?

DP: you are exaggerating a bit too much...if the name Daeshanda is such an obstacle, she could just change it. Millions of immigrants do it, and they do very well despite the even more pronounced biases and obstacles.

Yeah. My uncle had to change his name because companies weren't hiring Jews. (It was well known. This was post-WWII and antisemitism was rampant in this country.) He went on to become the VP of his company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly.

Nobody ever said they were entitled. But in many cases their grades and scores would have taken them in that direction, but AA policies instead favored lower-scoring blacks. So why are black kids with lower grades ENTITLED? Any why can't the poorer-scoring black kids go to some other school? You people seem to be saying that 3rd tier universities are good enough for poor white Billy from the housing projects, even with his A- average, and yet Daeshanda should go to Ivy with her B+. Why not just turn it around: Let the better student go to the better school, and the so-so student go to the lesser university?

As soon as we have a level playing field that'd be fine. But today in 2019 we still have white supremacists proudly marching the streets. We have a POTUS who hesitates to disavow them. We have harsh backlash to BLM. We have people still worshipping Confederate war heros and the flag. We have systematic racism / implicit bias.

We are not ready for that. If a handful of white people have a slightly less optimal outcome? That's a price I'm willing to pay. Sorry, Billy.

I'm not going to argue with you about the POTUS disavowing the fringe element of white supremacists, since he clearly did that and you in your liberal fog refuse to acknowledge it.

But, to get this straight, you say that you are willing to send all the Billys (poor white kids from the housing projects who, despite their hardships, managed to get all As) to community college or a lesser school because that is a price YOU are willing to pay? Such a liberal. You guys are willing to pay for anything as long as it is not you personally paying the price. So generous.

All I can say is thank god that my parents went to college before AA was in effect. They both had after-school jobs that got that home at MIDNIGHT to help pay the family's bills, and still managed to ace their college admissions tests. I shudder to think how different their lives would have been if they had been shut out of college because Dashanda, who did much worse academically, was seen as deserving a chance - and the whites weren't.

I said he HESITATED to disavow. Which was 100% accurate.

Why do you think that every.single.poor.white.kid won't go to college because they are "losing their spots" to URMs? How many Billys do you think there are? How many kids are actually affecting by AA? What is the real-life impact? Not another hypothetical med student that doesn't exist. You'll need to account for all of the rich white kids who scored a tiny bit higher than Billy but also didn't get in. And all of the URMs who did score higher than him.

I am perfectly fine if my kids go to a "lesser" school (even community college) if that means more URMs can go to an elite college. They will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Give me a break. Daeshanda has the almost-sure option of a federal job where hiring is clearly based on racial preferences.

And they make up how many jobs? What % of all jobs?

DP: you are exaggerating a bit too much...if the name Daeshanda is such an obstacle, she could just change it. Millions of immigrants do it, and they do very well despite the even more pronounced biases and obstacles.

Yeah. My uncle had to change his name because companies weren't hiring Jews. (It was well known. This was post-WWII and antisemitism was rampant in this country.) He went on to become the VP of his company.

….oh, and forgot to add....he was poor and got into a free-tuition because HIS grades were so excellent. Can you imagine if he lost his spot due to AA, so a black kid with worse grades got in instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Give me a break. Daeshanda has the almost-sure option of a federal job where hiring is clearly based on racial preferences.

And they make up how many jobs? What % of all jobs?

Walk around any DC agency. The percentage of black employees is way overrepresented. They are ORM! And they can't get fired, either.

And don't even get me started on the DC government. Whitey don't got no chance of getting a stinkin' job there. Maybe a token once in a while, but a promotion? Naaaaa.

No, I meant how many federal jobs are there total? What % of total jobs in the US?

I'll save you a google: 2 million out of 156 million jobs. ~1%


What about the 99% of other jobs available?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The vast majority of spots at competitive colleges will go to white kids. They will continue on their easy path of upward mobility. Why are you so focused on the handful of spots that go to URMs? What about other spots at those colleges that go to other kids with lesser grades? Don't hear you complaining once about them.

+1 I recently talked to a white acquaintance who said her 13 year old daughter is interested in going to medical school, but "she probably won't get in because affirmative action will give all the spots to blacks". She has her excuses ready 10 years in advance! <sarcasm> After all, affirmative action is the only possible reason why she couldn't get in medical school <\sarcasm>