Trump DOJ to prosecute universities for anti-white affirmative action policies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encourage all African-American's in this thread who are pointlessly debating with many posters who are stomping and cheering in celebration of this recent shift in focus by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to consider the following...

This recent release of Segregation 2.0 could actually be beneficial for HBCU's as threats of litigation, costly reporting requirements or federal funding reductions could compel predominantly white Ivy League and large state universities to reduce the number of minority entrants, which could bolster enrollment at highly selective HBCU's like Howard University and Spelman College, and large public HBCU's like North Carolina A&T and Florida A&M.

Don't believe the hype people. Affirmative action being picked off by judicial conservatism at the highest levels may seem like a bad idea, but for the schools that exclusively serve the people whom will most be affected by its demise, it may reintroduce HBCU value to the nation and world. #LookForTheSilverLining

Thank you. Both my parents attended HBCUs because they were forbidden from attending the flagship universities in their state. I attended a HBCU grad school BY CHOICE. If you think back on it, aside from the Ivy League, these schools attracted the best and the brightest because they were most welcome at these schools. I want to see kids go wherever they want and do not want to see them arbitrarily shut out of schools - but I wish more would see the benefit of HBCU's.

You are most welcome and thank you for your comment as well. There's been a great deal of nonsense and negativity thrown around over these 30+ pages due in large part to the fact that posters became more preoccupied with bashing their detractors and defending their ethnicity than actually considering the potentially positive repercussions that may result from this newly disclosed Justice Department investigation.

Segregation 2.0 will at the very least force a renewal of students' social and cultural interest in HBCU's and potentially it could set in motion a resurgence in HBCU enrollment. This is not a bad thing. Of the 90 schools with billion-dollar endowments, not one is an HBCU. The wealthier a school’s endowment, the more money it has both to attract students and to provide them with the funding and academic services to get them to graduation. A new influx of students would automatically create financial gains for HBCU's by way of tuition revenues, and could revitalize the ability for these schools to hire more faculty and staff to accommodate the growth. Public HBCUs would be better positioned to lobby state governments for additional funding to meet the new need, and the usual rebuff from legislators bemoaning retention and graduation rates would be stonewalled against incoming freshman classes with higher GPAs, higher aptitude scores, and requiring less money from financial aid because of the spike of incoming students entering from middle-class households.

African-American's are not strangers to struggle and have proven time and time again that we will not be denied - that determination to overcome despite all obstacles is what instigated the founding of HBCU's in the first place. In the poignant words of Maya Angelou...

You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I’ll rise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Same OP as above. I don't know, but I would also guess that it was strong - and for the same reason that the Jews had/have strong family units - survival.

But that begs the next question. Why have the Jews maintained their strong emphasis on intact families, yet in recent years there has been a breakdown iin intact black families. Any idea why?

Families were ripped apart and sold off, women raped by their masters or task-masters etc. The idea of a cohesive family unit among slaves is laughable if it wasn't so outrageous that you would even suggest it.

No. You misunderstand.

I'm not saying the families were intact. I'm saying the desire for intact family units was strong. We are talking about the values.

What the FUCK are you talking about? Are you really this lacking in empathy? I'm not agreeing with your notion that AA slaves had less of a "desire" for intact family units. But if they did, who could blame them? Why would you bother investing your hopes and dreams in a family if it had no social standing whatsoever? If, in fact, it could be a detriment, not an advantage? In terms of basic survival and self-preservation, how would having a family help a slave? It would be much easier to have fewer emotional attachments in that environment. Then it might be less painful when a fellow slave was sold or raped or beaten or tortured or killed. Why would you want to have children, to suffer as you were suffering? And this kind of existence went on for GENERATIONS. Would it really be surprising if there were long-lasting ramifications of that?

Do you think Jewish women in concentration camps were happy they had children to suffer as they were suffering? You think it made it easier on them to know that somewhere their parents were being gassed, their daughters were being raped, their husbands were slave labor? I'm guessing having a strong family unit at that time was more painful than joyful. How many may have thought, "I would rather they be dead than suffer this." It was a period of terrible inhumanity, terrible suffering....but relative to slavery in the US, it was for a very short time.

The legacy of slavery and discrimination in this country is still with us in a way that is very unique. It exists on so many different levels it is hard to fully describe and quantify. But here's one tangible way that continues to haunt us. In large part because of discrimination, black people have been more likely to live in substandard housing in dense urban areas. Those areas have been and continue to be polluted with high levels of lead--in the paint, in the soil. Children exposed to high levels of lead or to lower levels over long periods of time have a myriad of health, developmental, and intellectual issues that continue throughout their lives. That exposure affects people's ability to succeed in school, in the workplace, in life. Here are the findings of one recent study:

We consider a new source of racial disparities in test scores: African American students’
disproportionate exposure to environmental toxins, and, in particular, lead. Using a unique
individual-level dataset of children’s preschool lead levels linked with future educational
outcomes for children in RI, we document significant declines in racial disparities in child lead
levels since 1997, due largely to state policies aimed at reducing lead hazards in homes.
Exploiting the change in child lead levels as a result of the policy, we generate causal estimates
of the impact of preschool lead levels on reading and math test scores through grade 8 in an IV
framework. We find that a 5 ug/dl increase in child lead levels reduces test scores by 30-60
percent of a standard deviation, depending on the specification. The effects are strongest in the
lower tail of the test score distribution and do not fade over time. We calculate that the decline in
racial disparities in lead explains between 37 and 76% of the decline in racial disparities in test
scores witnessed over the past decade in RI.

http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/aizer_feb_12_2015.pdf

So while today, AA children might be less likely to suffer the effects of lead exposure than they used to be, their parents absolutely were more likely to suffer than parents of white children. And if you believe parenting and families have a critical impact on children's success, then you can see that having a parent who continues to suffer from childhood exposure to lead could be problematic. This is just one way that the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow might continue to affect black children today, even if discrimination were no longer an issue.

I didn't even read past your first sentence because you got what I said completely wrong. I think you're so furious that you misread statements by whites because you are looking for negativity.

I SAID the desire for intact families among black slaves was strong. So what do you say? You say you disagree with my notion that slaves had less of a desire for strong families! Complete opposite to what I said. I stopped reading at that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encourage all African-American's in this thread who are pointlessly debating with many posters who are stomping and cheering in celebration of this recent shift in focus by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to consider the following...

This recent release of Segregation 2.0 could actually be beneficial for HBCU's as threats of litigation, costly reporting requirements or federal funding reductions could compel predominantly white Ivy League and large state universities to reduce the number of minority entrants, which could bolster enrollment at highly selective HBCU's like Howard University and Spelman College, and large public HBCU's like North Carolina A&T and Florida A&M.

Don't believe the hype people. Affirmative action being picked off by judicial conservatism at the highest levels may seem like a bad idea, but for the schools that exclusively serve the people whom will most be affected by its demise, it may reintroduce HBCU value to the nation and world. #LookForTheSilverLining

Thank you. Both my parents attended HBCUs because they were forbidden from attending the flagship universities in their state. I attended a HBCU grad school BY CHOICE. If you think back on it, aside from the Ivy League, these schools attracted the best and the brightest because they were most welcome at these schools. I want to see kids go wherever they want and do not want to see them arbitrarily shut out of schools - but I wish more would see the benefit of HBCU's.

Yeah, my dad was forbidden from attending an Ivy in the 1950s. They had a strict quota on Jews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Same OP as above. I don't know, but I would also guess that it was strong - and for the same reason that the Jews had/have strong family units - survival.

But that begs the next question. Why have the Jews maintained their strong emphasis on intact families, yet in recent years there has been a breakdown iin intact black families. Any idea why?

Families were ripped apart and sold off, women raped by their masters or task-masters etc. The idea of a cohesive family unit among slaves is laughable if it wasn't so outrageous that you would even suggest it.

No. You misunderstand.

I'm not saying the families were intact. I'm saying the desire for intact family units was strong. We are talking about the values.

What the FUCK are you talking about? Are you really this lacking in empathy? I'm not agreeing with your notion that AA slaves had less of a "desire" for intact family units. But if they did, who could blame them? Why would you bother investing your hopes and dreams in a family if it had no social standing whatsoever? If, in fact, it could be a detriment, not an advantage? In terms of basic survival and self-preservation, how would having a family help a slave? It would be much easier to have fewer emotional attachments in that environment. Then it might be less painful when a fellow slave was sold or raped or beaten or tortured or killed. Why would you want to have children, to suffer as you were suffering? And this kind of existence went on for GENERATIONS. Would it really be surprising if there were long-lasting ramifications of that?

Do you think Jewish women in concentration camps were happy they had children to suffer as they were suffering? You think it made it easier on them to know that somewhere their parents were being gassed, their daughters were being raped, their husbands were slave labor? I'm guessing having a strong family unit at that time was more painful than joyful. How many may have thought, "I would rather they be dead than suffer this." It was a period of terrible inhumanity, terrible suffering....but relative to slavery in the US, it was for a very short time.

The legacy of slavery and discrimination in this country is still with us in a way that is very unique. It exists on so many different levels it is hard to fully describe and quantify. But here's one tangible way that continues to haunt us. In large part because of discrimination, black people have been more likely to live in substandard housing in dense urban areas. Those areas have been and continue to be polluted with high levels of lead--in the paint, in the soil. Children exposed to high levels of lead or to lower levels over long periods of time have a myriad of health, developmental, and intellectual issues that continue throughout their lives. That exposure affects people's ability to succeed in school, in the workplace, in life. Here are the findings of one recent study:

We consider a new source of racial disparities in test scores: African American students’
disproportionate exposure to environmental toxins, and, in particular, lead. Using a unique
individual-level dataset of children’s preschool lead levels linked with future educational
outcomes for children in RI, we document significant declines in racial disparities in child lead
levels since 1997, due largely to state policies aimed at reducing lead hazards in homes.
Exploiting the change in child lead levels as a result of the policy, we generate causal estimates
of the impact of preschool lead levels on reading and math test scores through grade 8 in an IV
framework. We find that a 5 ug/dl increase in child lead levels reduces test scores by 30-60
percent of a standard deviation, depending on the specification. The effects are strongest in the
lower tail of the test score distribution and do not fade over time. We calculate that the decline in
racial disparities in lead explains between 37 and 76% of the decline in racial disparities in test
scores witnessed over the past decade in RI.

http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/aizer_feb_12_2015.pdf

So while today, AA children might be less likely to suffer the effects of lead exposure than they used to be, their parents absolutely were more likely to suffer than parents of white children. And if you believe parenting and families have a critical impact on children's success, then you can see that having a parent who continues to suffer from childhood exposure to lead could be problematic. This is just one way that the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow might continue to affect black children today, even if discrimination were no longer an issue.

I didn't even read past your first sentence because you got what I said completely wrong. I think you're so furious that you misread statements by whites because you are looking for negativity.

I SAID the desire for intact families among black slaves was strong. So what do you say? You say you disagree with my notion that slaves had less of a desire for strong families! Complete opposite to what I said. I stopped reading at that point.

Well, I'm white so, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action cannot continue indefinitely. Considering that blacks were getting preferential treatment in the 1970s, we are now on the third generation getting into college with standards lowered to allow it. Jews and Asians immigrated here, and even among the poor, uneducated ones, their kids went to college on their own merits. How many more generations is this supposed to last?

I support color-blind, income-based affirmative action. Let's give all bright poor kids a chance, regardless of race.

How about when blacks are not disproportionately stopped by cops and killed? How about when blacks are not disproportionately given jail term for the same minor drug crime that whites get away with community service? How about when blacks are not viewed with negative stereotype no matter their own personal qualities? How about when blacks are allowed to get the same access to good schools instead of the poor school districts they are isolated to thus perpetuating their permanent underclass status? How about when the last vestige of racism is rooted out?

I can go on but the point is whites assume that just because there is no slavery or Jim Crow suddenly life for blacks became heavenly. Blacks suffer through the effects of subtle, systemic racism to this day. All minorities face some form of racism but blacks and Hispanics the most. Asians face racism when climbing through the ranks but that has slowly changed with more asian CEOs.

How about black put some efforts and try not to get to jail at all? How about creating a positive stereotype about your race by actually doing something positive?
As to the schools, it is what your kids make out of it. Asians kids get to the schools and make them the best performing schools in the district. How about black kids start pulling their school rating up instead just redistricting to the different school and bringing it down?
Why are you assuming that white folks' lives are heavenly? It is hard work, for both, parents and children. But for some reason, white and Asians are willing to put a hard work, and blacks are demanding everything is to be given to them. Blacks suffer through the effects of their own judgement and choices they are making, and then call it racism. Yes, all races are facing difficulties in life. But some races just work harder and that is why you see the result of their hard work (more asian CEOs), while the other races just blaming every one else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I encourage all African-American's in this thread who are pointlessly debating with many posters who are stomping and cheering in celebration of this recent shift in focus by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to consider the following...

This recent release of Segregation 2.0 could actually be beneficial for HBCU's as threats of litigation, costly reporting requirements or federal funding reductions could compel predominantly white Ivy League and large state universities to reduce the number of minority entrants, which could bolster enrollment at highly selective HBCU's like Howard University and Spelman College, and large public HBCU's like North Carolina A&T and Florida A&M.

Don't believe the hype people. Affirmative action being picked off by judicial conservatism at the highest levels may seem like a bad idea, but for the schools that exclusively serve the people whom will most be affected by its demise, it may reintroduce HBCU value to the nation and world. #LookForTheSilverLining

Thank you. Both my parents attended HBCUs because they were forbidden from attending the flagship universities in their state. I attended a HBCU grad school BY CHOICE. If you think back on it, aside from the Ivy League, these schools attracted the best and the brightest because they were most welcome at these schools. I want to see kids go wherever they want and do not want to see them arbitrarily shut out of schools - but I wish more would see the benefit of HBCU's.

Yeah, my dad was forbidden from attending an Ivy in the 1950s. They had a strict quota on Jews.

Yea, well strict quota by definition indicates that some were allowed. Not the case with my parents. Anyways, I am not one who engages in competition about whose people had it worse. You have the other PP for that. LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It pretty simple.

Elite schools have figured out that the White privileged class is not always the best source of genius, talent, creativity and innovation. These things come in many forms and from may places. Holistic admission policies are just better at identifying folks with these factors.

This thread kind of bears out the selfish nature of the argument. Not one White anti-AA has argued about why their kids benefit the campus or what their kids bring to the table that contributes to the educational experience of those around them. All they talk about is opportunities that are being take from them - that they are being cheated. The Pro AA crowd talks in terms of a more diverse campus and that resulting in a positive experience for all students.

I hear a lot of the pro-AA crowd (speaking of a system intended to benefit blacks, since AA could be based on income, which I prefer) talk about cops killing blacks and the legacy of slavery, and defending preferential admissions treatment for those reasons. I haven't heard a lot about diversity resulting in a positive experience for all students.

OTOH, I hear a lot of the anti-AA crowd talk about giving poor people more of chance, white or black. That's what I support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It pretty simple.

Elite schools have figured out that the White privileged class is not always the best source of genius, talent, creativity and innovation. These things come in many forms and from may places. Holistic admission policies are just better at identifying folks with these factors.

This thread kind of bears out the selfish nature of the argument. Not one White anti-AA has argued about why their kids benefit the campus or what their kids bring to the table that contributes to the educational experience of those around them. All they talk about is opportunities that are being take from them - that they are being cheated. The Pro AA crowd talks in terms of a more diverse campus and that resulting in a positive experience for all students.

I hear a lot of the pro-AA crowd (speaking of a system intended to benefit blacks, since AA could be based on income, which I prefer) talk about cops killing blacks and the legacy of slavery, and defending preferential admissions treatment for those reasons. I haven't heard a lot about diversity resulting in a positive experience for all students.

OTOH, I hear a lot of the anti-AA crowd talk about giving poor people more of chance, white or black. That's what I support.

LOL!! In this thread, you "hear" ONE person saying that. One. At the most two. I am always amused that AA arguments always end up being a referendum on what Black people do right and what they do wrong. There are more URMs in college today than there have ever been. Seeing as how Whites are quick to lecture URMs about what they "need" to do to have more success, I would think that many of them would see this as a positive. TBH, I am more interested in seeing those numbers continue to increase than I am having some philosophical discussion about it.

Actually, family income IS part of almost every school's holistic analysis. They are already considering SES background. Poor White kids do VERY well in the Ivy admissions process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action cannot continue indefinitely. Considering that blacks were getting preferential treatment in the 1970s, we are now on the third generation getting into college with standards lowered to allow it. Jews and Asians immigrated here, and even among the poor, uneducated ones, their kids went to college on their own merits. How many more generations is this supposed to last?

I support color-blind, income-based affirmative action. Let's give all bright poor kids a chance, regardless of race.

How about when blacks are not disproportionately stopped by cops and killed? How about when blacks are not disproportionately given jail term for the same minor drug crime that whites get away with community service? How about when blacks are not viewed with negative stereotype no matter their own personal qualities? How about when blacks are allowed to get the same access to good schools instead of the poor school districts they are isolated to thus perpetuating their permanent underclass status? How about when the last vestige of racism is rooted out?

I can go on but the point is whites assume that just because there is no slavery or Jim Crow suddenly life for blacks became heavenly. Blacks suffer through the effects of subtle, systemic racism to this day. All minorities face some form of racism but blacks and Hispanics the most. Asians face racism when climbing through the ranks but that has slowly changed with more asian CEOs.

How about black put some efforts and try not to get to jail at all? How about creating a positive stereotype about your race by actually doing something positive?
As to the schools, it is what your kids make out of it. Asians kids get to the schools and make them the best performing schools in the district. How about black kids start pulling their school rating up instead just redistricting to the different school and bringing it down?
Why are you assuming that white folks' lives are heavenly? It is hard work, for both, parents and children. But for some reason, white and Asians are willing to put a hard work, and blacks are demanding everything is to be given to them. Blacks suffer through the effects of their own judgement and choices they are making, and then call it racism. Yes, all races are facing difficulties in life. But some races just work harder and that is why you see the result of their hard work (more asian CEOs), while the other races just blaming every one else.

I am not black and you dont need to be black to make a case. Well if you are caught in a situation that is not your own making how do you get out of it? Millions of Native Americans were killed and they were literally wiped out. Then here comes an arm chair expert who says, well they should have fought better. Take your uneducated, biased view and dump it in the trash. things are not as simplistic as your simple mind would want to believe otherwise history will be linear.

Asians come from educated back ground and if they don;t have they dont have to carry the historical baggage. Have you been to the south or Appalachia ? The poor whites are in the same boat as the blacks except for the white skin privilege which gets them out with minor slap in the wrist instead of jail for minor drug offenses.

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing: If diversity on campus is the goal, in order to create an environment in which students interact with those "different" from themselves, we for sure should base AA on income rather than race. As a white woman from an UMC family, I have much more in common with black friends from a similar SES than I do a poor white. Our interests are similar, our communication style is similar, our career aspirations are similar, and our travel and other experiences are similar. But put me in a room with a white woman from a poor rural town in Kentucky, and the difference is night and day. Our experiences are different, our outlook on what we want from a career is different, the way we communicate, how we relate to our parents, and so forth.

That is why AA policies should be income-based. A campus is much more diverse when there are different SES groips, much more so than a bunch of upper-middle class white and black kids with college-educated parents. Plus, you're giving priority to the poor kid. I say let's give him a chance. The upper-middle class black kid already has had advantages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are good at making assumptions. I don't have to be black to make a case for Affirmative Action. Holocaust is bad but not nearly as bad as slavery which went on for centuries and killed millions of blacks and deprived them the very humanity you take for granted. It is much much worse than Holocaust. No one said everything is someone else's fault. But slavery, jim crow, cop shooting of unarmed blacks, harsh criminal justice reserved for minor black crimes are all on the hands of systemic racism.

oh

Here we go again. Let's see whose history is worse - descendants of slaves or descendants of the Holocaust.

lynchings
gas chambers
rapes
brutal force
starvation
child labor
breaking families apart

You must be very competitive, PP. but for all the wrong reasons . . .

Um and how many rapes, murders, and robberies have blacks committed against whites? They commute violent crimes against white demonstrators FAR more frequently than whites against blacks. So we should reward them?

Well, if we're trying to keep score, AAs have a long way to catch up. Look out, whitey.

Most AAs have slaveowner ancestry as well. This is something that many AAs seem to conveniently forget about whenever they can beat white people over the head about slavery.

This is the typical defense of the coward. A heinous crime is justified because someone else committed it too. And it's such an exaggeration that blacks were slave owners in America. Even if it was true it pales in comparison to the scale of white slave owners.

Did someone say that slavery was justified? And you are clearly not understanding the point. The point is not that some "blacks were slave owners." The point is that many blacks like to point out that their ancestors were raped by cruel white slaveowners, while conveniently omitting the logical implication that this means that they themselves are descendants of those cruel white slaveowners and are in no position to be condemning other people's ancestry.

So are you saying if a black man rapes your wife and your daughter then your progeny will claim black ancestry as as theirs and celebrate it.

It doesn't matter what they "claim" or "celebrate." If you are the product of a rape, your father is a rapist. It doesn't matter if you "claim" or "celebrate" him. He is your father. You may not like him, but you are his descendent and there is nothing you can do about it. If your white great-great-great grandfather raped your black great-great-great grandmother, you are just as much a descendant of the white rapist as the black victim. He is just as much as part of your family as she is.

My point is not that descendants of bad people should feel ashamed or guilty. I'm just pointing out the common hypocrisy that so much of black identity is based on "white oppressors enslaved/raped by ancestors" when you are often literally descended from those white oppressors yourself. If white people are implicated by what their ancestors did, then so are you.

That would be fine and dandy if the issue at hand where how to fill out the family tree or who to research on ancestry.com. But the issue at hand is whether there is a lasting legacy for descendants of slavery. Are you arguing that people of mixed race have never been victims of discrimination because they can say to the cop who stops them or the bus driver who sends them to the back of the bus or neighborhood association that won't sell them a home, "I'm actually part white, so lucky me! Your discriminatory rules don't apply!" ??

I'm not denying that AAs have suffered post-slavery. I'm just pointing out the fallacy when AAs try to play the "your ancestors enslaved/raped my ancestors" card. Those are your ancestors too. I am aware that AAs have suffered from discrimination long after emancipation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are good at making assumptions. I don't have to be black to make a case for Affirmative Action. Holocaust is bad but not nearly as bad as slavery which went on for centuries and killed millions of blacks and deprived them the very humanity you take for granted. It is much much worse than Holocaust. No one said everything is someone else's fault. But slavery, jim crow, cop shooting of unarmed blacks, harsh criminal justice reserved for minor black crimes are all on the hands of systemic racism.

oh

Here we go again. Let's see whose history is worse - descendants of slaves or descendants of the Holocaust.

lynchings
gas chambers
rapes
brutal force
starvation
child labor
breaking families apart

You must be very competitive, PP. but for all the wrong reasons . . .

Um and how many rapes, murders, and robberies have blacks committed against whites? They commute violent crimes against white demonstrators FAR more frequently than whites against blacks. So we should reward them?

Well, if we're trying to keep score, AAs have a long way to catch up. Look out, whitey.

Most AAs have slaveowner ancestry as well. This is something that many AAs seem to conveniently forget about whenever they can beat white people over the head about slavery.

Maybe they'd like to forget the fact that their great-great-great-grandmothers were raped by those slaveowners.

I think it's more like they'd like they'd like to forget that their great-great-great grandfather was a rapist and a slaveowner, but they only identify with the grandmother to absolve their ancestry of any implication of being involved with slavery. The problem is that if one of your ancestors was conceived by rape, that means that you are a direct descendant of the rapist as well. I understand it's not something people want to think about, but it's something that's only fair to point it out when a black person starts holding the "your ancestors were slaveowners/your ancestors raped my ancestors" card over a white person's head. Those evil slaveowning rapists are YOUR ancestors, YOUR family, YOUR blood -- not necessarily mine.

Ah, so black people should CELEBRATE slavery and their slave-owner ancestry? Now I get it.

FFS.

Here's an idea: Maybe one of the reasons many mixed-race people consider themselves black is because their white ancestors refused to acknowledge them and so they were reared by and among black/mixed race people. And maybe it also has something to do with the fact that descendants of slavery often have darker skin and so are considered/treated by everyone they meet as "black," regardless of their ancestry. Or maybe you're forgetting about the one-drop rule?

The issue is not whether you consider yourself to be "black." If your great-great-great grandfather was a white rapist. You can still identify as "black." I don't care. I am not the authority on who is and who isn't black. Just don't attack white people for having "slaveowning/rapist" ancestors when those people are often your own ancestors as well.

Incidentally, I have never heard a white person invoke a "one-drop" rule. The only people I hear talking about this are AAs. This is one of those many nefarious things that AAs seem to think white people believe and talk about, but virtually never do. I understand that historically, there was a one-drop rule, but that's not common mentality in modern times, except for maybe Aryan Nation types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
How about black put some efforts and try not to get to jail at all? How about creating a positive stereotype about your race by actually doing something positive?
As to the schools, it is what your kids make out of it. Asians kids get to the schools and make them the best performing schools in the district. How about black kids start pulling their school rating up instead just redistricting to the different school and bringing it down?
Why are you assuming that white folks' lives are heavenly? It is hard work, for both, parents and children. But for some reason, white and Asians are willing to put a hard work, and blacks are demanding everything is to be given to them. Blacks suffer through the effects of their own judgement and choices they are making, and then call it racism. Yes, all races are facing difficulties in life. But some races just work harder and that is why you see the result of their hard work (more asian CEOs), while the other races just blaming every one else.

Yeah, I can't believe no black-Americans have done anything positive to show that black-Americans can be successful and hardworking. Barack Obama, Clarence Thomas, Eric Holder, Ben Carson, Lisa Jackson...what a bunch of unsuccessful, lazy losers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action cannot continue indefinitely. Considering that blacks were getting preferential treatment in the 1970s, we are now on the third generation getting into college with standards lowered to allow it. Jews and Asians immigrated here, and even among the poor, uneducated ones, their kids went to college on their own merits. How many more generations is this supposed to last?

I support color-blind, income-based affirmative action. Let's give all bright poor kids a chance, regardless of race.

How about when blacks are not disproportionately stopped by cops and killed? How about when blacks are not disproportionately given jail term for the same minor drug crime that whites get away with community service? How about when blacks are not viewed with negative stereotype no matter their own personal qualities? How about when blacks are allowed to get the same access to good schools instead of the poor school districts they are isolated to thus perpetuating their permanent underclass status? How about when the last vestige of racism is rooted out?

I can go on but the point is whites assume that just because there is no slavery or Jim Crow suddenly life for blacks became heavenly. Blacks suffer through the effects of subtle, systemic racism to this day. All minorities face some form of racism but blacks and Hispanics the most. Asians face racism when climbing through the ranks but that has slowly changed with more asian CEOs.

1) Blacks are not disproportionately stopped and killed by cops. Whenever they look at the data they find that blacks are less likely to be shot than whites in similar circumstances. Blacks are about 25% of the people shot by cops but they commit 40+% of the violent crime. The proportion of blacks shot by police has been going steadily down for the last 30 years.

There's a really good piece talking about this subject here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/

2) Schools in predominantly black areas get the same funding that other school systems get. It's the students that make the schools "bad".

Don't know what to do about the stereotypes, but if young black males weren't 3-10 times more likely to commit most types of crime I'm pretty sure these stereotypes wouldn't exist.

1) You are totally wrong. A 2017 Stanford study says otherwise. Just because statistically blacks commit higher crimes doesn't mean an innocent black person gets shot. Do not post a blogger site for reference because it has zero credibility.

http://news.stanford.edu/2016/06/28/stanford-researchers-develop-new-statistical-test-shows-racial-profiling-police-traffic-stops/

2) This is a total lie. School funding is based on property taxes and obviously schools with wealthier neighborhoods get better teachers, better facilities and funding.

Why did you conveniently ignore the whites getting away with drug crimes which is the core issue due to which black men are not able to be with families. Suddenly drugs are becoming an issue because whites are getting affected. But when blacks were the ones getting affected by drugs nobody cared and infact blacks ere sent to jail for addiction. Now that whites are getting affected you are talking about drug treatment facilities. This is systemic racism.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It pretty simple.

Elite schools have figured out that the White privileged class is not always the best source of genius, talent, creativity and innovation. These things come in many forms and from may places. Holistic admission policies are just better at identifying folks with these factors.

This thread kind of bears out the selfish nature of the argument. Not one White anti-AA has argued about why their kids benefit the campus or what their kids bring to the table that contributes to the educational experience of those around them. All they talk about is opportunities that are being take from them - that they are being cheated. The Pro AA crowd talks in terms of a more diverse campus and that resulting in a positive experience for all students.

Exactly.

Drop the entitlement and bring something to the table.