Each and every black student at the UW medical school passed the admissions test so why should they not be allowed to attend? The test is a pass/fail test and the actual score is to a large extent irrelevant. Either you pass and are qualified to attend or you fail and are not qualified. What is granted is preferrential treatment of those that score very high on the test but that is a very limited bracket that provides preferrential treatment to a few. Below that level it's just a pass/fail test. Perhaps we should just eliminate the preferrential treatment of the few and throw everyone that passes the test into a hat to determine who is admitted. The argument that we allow discrimination in admissions for a few based upon the test results becomes clear. Why should there be any discrimination related to admissions. Just because someone scores high on a test doesn't imply they will become a better doctor. It doesn't even imply that they will graduate. So why do we allow discrimination in college admissions at all? BTW remember that everyone that goes to Med School already has a pre-med degree. They've proven that they are capable of the advanced studies so no test at all should be required. We can also note that not every student is admitted to med school the first year they apply. Many have to "wait in line" until a seat opens up for them. A person that has already waited for one year should have priority over someone applying for the first time. Of course for many that would choose to become medical doctors change their career goals if they aren't admitted to med school. Some become go on to micro-biologists for example because they don't want to wait for a med school seat to open up for them.
Is this an argument that a person that pays for a crime to be committed isn't responsible for the crime? So if I hire someone to rob a bank and give me the money then I'm not criminally liable for the bank robbery. Got it. Try using that argument in a court of law.
There in lies the real problem because if a person is too stupid to know why it's illogical and wrong then they're too stupid to understand anything related to race. At least there was no denial of the fact that Republicans harbor extensive anti-black racial prejudice and act upon that anti-black racial prejudice in both government and the private sector which is racial discrimination that violates the equal protection clause of the 14tth Amendment and the unenumerated Inalienable Rights of the Person protected by the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution. Of course the "racist" doesn't care about the US Constitution and that is quite evident today with the Republican Party.
Because 19 Whites students with higher marks were rejected so those Blacks could be admitted. Thanks. I'll stick with the people who know what they're talking about. Because admissions should discriminate in favor of the best students. Duh. I take it you don't have a science degree and therefore haven't taken Chemistry, Biology or Physics courses to appreciate one iota of what you're talking about. However, I do. The fact that many with undergraduate degrees wash out of med school disproves your absurd claim that everyone with a degree is capable of passing advanced studies. How's your source on Black and White five year olds with identical IQ coming?
Where have you proven someone - anyone - is stupid? You understand a claim doesn't have authority because it is simply your opinion, right? Perhaps you don't, as you were falsely claiming a study that qualitatively looked at motivation on IQ testing with little importance accounted 100% for the IQ gap between Blacks and Whites. I just find it funny you're still delirious enough not to have figured out every claim you've made in this thread has been utterly refuted; you've been shown to falsify data; and you apparently make up studies which don't exist. Anyway, fact-free posts seems your last refuge.
It they break the law they should. But that goes for everybody regardless of race. Should we punish Germans today for the crimes of the past generations? I don't think it's about "punishing" anybody. It's about simply recognizing past injustices and making sure they aren't replicated today or in the future. Unfortunately many whites see that as punishment, so they get very defensive.
Just to turn that around on you, many minorities think that life in the US isn't fair unless their share of the pie is larger than what they have earned as individuals. They feel that the fact that their ancestors were marginalized somehow earns them special privileges. I beg to differ.
According to who? Again...according to who? I mean...you claim to know how "many minorities think or feel". How do you know this? It sounds like xenophobia to me. Where did you get this idea from?
Some years ago (in the '80s) there was talk of giving Blacks a subsidy or possibly a one-time payment because their ancestors had been slaves. The Blacks I talked to were completely in favor of this, and in agreement with the basis for it. This tends to support my premise on how they feel. The basis for Affirmative Action was to give preference based on race and marginalization of minorities in the past. The quota system for AA did not match the pool of qualified applicants percentagewise. It would seem that some major legislation has been considered to address past racial inequities in the present. IMO this wouldn't have happened without the approval of the minorities in question. It seems you know what Whites think and feel. Why can't you accept that others can make valid observations and draw conclusions as well?
It So you think that legislation requires the "approval of minorities"? That somebody comes up with this and then seeks out minority leaders to get a stamp of approval? Do legislators seek minority approval for setting up Voter ID Laws? I'm white. And I'm 66 years old. I'm pretty familiar with the "white experience", and many of the attitudes that have prevailed for a very long time. What I don't do is assume to know how minorities from other cultural backgrounds think or feel about their status in America. And what I find amazing is that so many other of my white brothers and sisters, seem to have this ability to read others minds. The best way to know what somebody thinks about something is to ask them, and then follow their reasoning for thinking that way. The most striking thing I see coming from conservatives is when they tell me what other people think, and what they feel.
I think that legislation that favors minorities dies without their approval. Voter ID laws do not fall into this category. So you can presume to speak for all Whites based on your observations, but you deny that anyone else can make observations of minorities and draw equally valid conclusions. You find it amazing that someone whose best friend is a member of a minority group can understand how that friend thinks. Three more words and I'm done: pot, kettle, black.
Well...you may think this but that doesn't make what you think true, does it? And why wouldn't Voter ID laws fall into this category when it directly effects them? The Voter ID laws in fact target them. It's established that those most effected by these laws are minorities and seniors who already have the required ID but are now being told they need something else, and that now imposes a hardship on them in obtaining the new documentation. In fact those laws have been struck down by the courts in several of the states that have created these laws. What it does is impose a poll tax on people by requiring them to lay out money to obtain the necessary documentation in order to exercise their right to vote. Documentation that they've had for years and allowed them to vote is no longer acceptable. Making people pay to vote is a poll tax, and that was struck down as unconstitutional. Amendment 24. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax". If you think that minorities have to give their stamp of approval on legislation, I'm afraid that you're assuming something that doesn't exist. It also appears from what you're saying that legislation that impacts them negatively is fine without their approval. I think you missed my point. Why do you immediately jump to the extreme position. I don't presume to speak for all Whites. I simply said that being White myself is evidence that I'm familiar with the White perspective on things as much as any other White person might be. Your argument here doesn't make any sense. What I don't assume is that I have direct insight into the thoughts and feelings of people of another culture or race with respect to how they see themselves in American society. That's what YOU are doing. Reverse the rolls and tell me that a black or Hispanic person knows how you as a White person thinks about them. Do you accept their observations as correct? You might not like the observations that they make and think that they're totally misplaced. If they see you as a racist, and using racism to hold onto a racially superior position in this country, are they wrong? Or by using the same reasoning that you are using, is their observation valid and correct? After all, if the mind and heart of another person can be read as you indicate, then isn't that a talent that we all have, or is it something that is exclusive to the conservative mind?
We see here how you posted about how many Whites feel based on observation and experience. I posted about how many minorities feel based on my observations and experience. Why do you feel you're the only one qualified to draw conclusions? It completely escapes me.
My assertion about legislation favoring minorities fails without the support of that minority stands unless you can name a bill that favored a minority that the minority didn't support that somehow became law in spite of that lack of support. What, we're going to force you to accept our hel whether you want it or not? The reason voter ID laws don't fall into the category of laws that favor minorities is quite simple: voter ID laws don't favor minorities. They are at bes neutral.
Your assertion is nothing more than that. The entire premise is convoluted. Legislation that gets passed may indeed have support from minorities, but that doesn't mean that those minorities have written the legislation or were presented the proposals as if they were some monolithic entity with an office on K Street in DC, indicating Minority Association. They aren't bankrolled by some Billionaires who can not only buy a politician willing to do their bidding, but can actually craft the legislation itself and simply need their paid politician to bring it to the floor. They have very little representation in Washington. Support is one thing. But signing off on legislation is totally different. Why would anybody oppose a law that was in their own interest? ( I suppose the Tea Party would be one example. Those people vote against their own interests all the time...and they suffer for it while being convinced that this bill is really good for them, and the patriotic thing to do. Meanwhile somebody else profits from the bill that the useful idiots go along with and support. ) That's nonsense. They aren't neutral at all. That's exactly why they have been struck down repeatedly by the courts. You seem to have the idea that laws "favor" minorities. That's not what is going on here. The laws are supposed to be designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority. They must protect the rights of the minority. They have the smallest voice in how this country is governed. The evidence of this is found in our history. The majority of the south wanted segregation. The minorities didn't. Without a law that would end discrimination as an institution, the rights of the minorities would continue to be violated. You call that a law that favors the minority. When what it actually does is remove laws that negatively impacted minorities so that balance can be achieved. Something that some people can't live with. The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it. Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative.
In what way is the concept that people who say they don't want help tend not to receive help complicated? So we agree that voter registration laws generally don't favor minorities. Which is why I posted that they were at best neutral. And so I tried to exclude them from a discussion of whether Whites should be punished. Some laws were intended to favor minorities. Affirmative action is a case in point. I never called desegregation a law that favors the minority. That straw man is entirely of your construction. In your last paragraph you now channel conservatives, with whom you apparently disagree. This is the very thing you say is invalid when I do it with minorities. It seems, once again, you know how everyone else thinks and feels. Not only that, but you know exactly why they think and feel the way they do. This allows you to construct straw men without limit.
It isn't. But that isn't what your saying. What you're saying is that legislation must be approved by people looking for help. They may ask for many things but that doesn't mean you get everything you want. I know that's a hard concept for Republicans to understand, but that's how things usually work. There are also politicians that find injustices taking place in certain pockets of the country and after listening to their constituents propose legislation to help remedy the problem. But what you've suggested is that this legislation must be approved by some organized group. That's just not the case. At least not on the left. On the Right side of things, there are lobby groups like Americans for Prosperity, or the Grover Norquist group or the NRA that requires lawmakers to meet their demands or run the risk of a primary challenge. They score the lawmakers on how they vote on legislation, and if they don't tow the line, they'll find themselves out of office quickly. Not quite. We both agree that they don't favor minorities. But we disagree on the neutrality idea. There is nothing neutral about the ID laws that negatively impact one segment of the population. That isn't neutrality. Nobody is asking for some special favor. They just don't want seeing efforts being made to disenfranchise them. This doesn't punish Whites. The ID laws work disproportionally against minorities. Again. AA isn't designed to "favor" minorities. It's designed to level the playing field. You need to remember that there were laws in effect in Texas for example in the 50's, that prevented blacks from attending Law School at the UofT. The reasoning was that since Blacks couldn't practice law in Texas there was no reason to admit them to Law School. How do you address that kind of practice? Desegregation was not about granting something to Blacks that Whites didn't already have. So it never favored any minority. The point I was making is that if we're going to talk about minorities, then we must include majorities into the equation as well. Without laws that prevent the majority from imposing their will on a minority, you have tyranny, and I used the example of segregation in the south as an example. There is no straw man involved here and I never suggested that you said that desegregation favored minorities.
A straw man amounts to putting words into the mouths of others. Exactly what you're doing here. Not very effectively, I might add. though I admit the dash of hypocrisy and self righteousness you add is amusing. And you continue to tell conservatives what they think and why! Impressive, though unimaginative. Tell me how AA didn't favor minorities. It set up a quota system. As a consequence, selection qualifications were lower for most minorities than for Whites. It did not level the playing field, it tilted it in favor of certain minorities. As another consequence, AA helped make the degrees of those minorities who were qualified worthless as more than qualifications for 'token' positions.
It's sad that so many don't truly know what racism is. If a law favors one race over another that is racism. Difference of opinion is not. Being attracted or not to a race is not. Assuming someone owes you because of your race is racism.
Fair enough, so if you teach your kids to hate another race of people based solely on the color of their skin what do you call that? When one has done another wrong isn't the person who was wronged owed restitution to right that wrong?
To hate someone based on skin color is racist. As far as restitution goes, that only applies if it happened to you directly. If you break my nose then you should pay. If I break your nose I should pay. I personally owe no one restitution and no one owes me. If you want to bring the government into this, well they have harmed me just as much as you, possibly more because of my skin color. That's why I never enter my race when filling out paper work. That's racist. When enrolling my kids in school I leave race blank also because it should not matter.
Bull. Get over it. I didn't do anything to you or your ancestors. Reparations are a lame argument for the lazy that want a crutch. Crap happens. It's over. - - - Updated - - - Tell your story to blacks who teach their kids that 'whitey is evil'. No white person owes you or any other black a dime.
Are you serious? Don't be naive. I dealt with HR managers for thirty years as a negotiator for the IBT when I worked at Hostess Brands. HR mangers need to keep an eye on their 'diversity' and submit reports as to the demographics lest the EEOC comes after them. Thankfully AA is being banned little by little. It is discriminatory.
