Affirmative Action? For/Against?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bbobb
Late to the party here as always, but I'd like to drop by and insert my 2 cents.
Personally the only Affirmative Action that I have enough information to have an opinion on is the College Admissions one that was the topic of alot of news recently (at least around this area). Personally I don't think race should affect admission to college in any way. I think that everyone trying to get into college should be admitted on their merits alone. They should not give their race, or even their name (since sometimes race can be at least hinted at by name). The admissions boards should get the application with a number on top and should be forced to judge via the essays and grades and all other merits... nothing else.

---

You know what? They should do that. They should do exactly that, for maybe like 16 years, and monitor that. Have the judging based just like that, don't let a parent donating money to a school affect admissions, legacy students, all that stuff.

I would like to see college populations then, after that 16 year period, it'd definitely be interesting. It doesn't have to be all schools, but any schools with controversy in this area, and most of the big name ones.

I'd be curious to see how that would work.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Calliander
You know what? They should do that. They should do exactly that, for maybe like 16 years, and monitor that. Have the judging based just like that, don't let a parent donating money to a school affect admissions, legacy students, all that stuff.

I would like to see college populations then, after that 16 year period, it'd definitely be interesting. It doesn't have to be all schools, but any schools with controversy in this area, and most of the big name ones.

I'd be curious to see how that would work.

---

See, thats nice and all, but when your Personal Statement (essay in UC-speak) asks you to "talk about life experiences which have shaped your academic interests and pursuits" , or to "name a significant event in your life", or "what do your hobbies reflect about you" or who knows what else, its almost impossible to write something with does not mention your race or gender, especially if youre a poor kid from the ghetto.

So let's face the reality of the situation - the admissions officers will know your race, or at least have a guess at it, just because you will most likely reflect it in what you write. This is doubly true for an Ivy or Stanford, where you have about seven things you have to write. After all, whether we like to admit it or not, race is a big deal in America.

And people can tell you what happened, because they already know what happens - UC in particular has experienced a decline in minorities on campus (outside of Asian) since they repeated their admission policies which award "points" (for lack of a better term) based on your race, where you grew up, etc. A noticeable decline, in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Everyone has prejudices, even you and if you can't own up to, that's your problem.

SC

---

Dude. Some predjudices just don't matter. I prefer Burger King to McDonald's. So what. You're making it out to sound like everyone has racist tendencies. That couldn't be more far from the truth. Not to mention a cop out. "Oh, since everyone carries their own prejudicies, that means it's OK for me to have them." Pah-leese.

And then saying it's "human" while claiming to work against it...how futile is that?! If it's inherrent to the species "human" then there's no avoiding it. So, not only are you now copping out in that you've excused it because "everyone does it," but you're making it inherrent to the species, which negates any moral implication it had.

Nice job.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
Dude. Some predjudices just don't matter. I prefer Burger King to McDonald's. So what. You're making it out to sound like everyone has racist tendencies. That couldn't be more far from the truth. Not to mention a cop out. "Oh, since everyone carries their own prejudicies, that means it's OK for me to have them." Pah-leese.

---

Umm that's kind of my point. My prejudice, if that's what you want to call it, against frat guys doesn't really matter. It's a trivial thing that has become part of me due to my experience with frat houses. It has nothing to do with racism. And can you explain where I said everyone "has racist tendencies"? You can't because I didn't say it. When you speak of my prejudices, you're calling me a racist, which I'm not. Your prejudice against McDonald's in preference to Burger King is an example of what I'm speaking of. You have them, I have them, everyone does.

Quote:

---

And then saying it's "human" while claiming to work against it...how futile is that?! If it's inherrent to the species "human" then there's no avoiding it. So, not only are you now copping out in that you've excused it because "everyone does it," but you're making it inherrent to the species, which negates any moral implication it had.

Nice job.

---

Sex is part of human nature and so is violence. Both of those can be avoided. So yes, I can work against my own prejudice. Like I explained before everyone has prejudice, even if it is of a minor sort. Take George Wallace, a once staunch racist who is now a leading advocate of civil rights. For your example, one day you could change your mind, work against your dislike of McDonalds and instead prefer it to Burger King. In my example, I dislike frat guys. I met diffusionx and he seems pretty cool, so maybe I was wrong and perhaps, someday, I won't even consider frat guys to be all the same person. I'm sure Shin Johnpv is a cool guy too, but I don't know him well enough and our conversations on this board haven't been the friendliest.

So what did you accomplish? You told me I was racist for disliking frat guys, you told me that I said everyone was racist deep inside, and you tell me that I can't have prejudices, but you can. All people have some prejudice. It's a scientificly sound and supported statement. Then you tell me that people can't overcome human instinctual qualities. Yes they will always be there, but that doesn't mean they can't be supressed. I've given you just a few examples of that. Even Shin Johnpv said he works to break his prejudices. So in essence you've accomplished nothing aside from making yourself look like a fool.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
No one said Clinton 'stole' the election, even though he won over Bush Sr. in electorial, not popular, votes.

---

Don't take this personally or as an attempt to embaress you, Hero, but I thought you might like to know this. I looked around and found out some stuff on popular vs. electoral vote.

In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush by a count of 370 to 168 in the electoral vote. However, Clinton also recieved 43.3% of the popular vote compared to Bush's 37.7% and Perot's 19.0%. I think what you heard was probably how Clinton didn't recieve a majority, or more than 50% of the popular vote.

Only four times in the history of American presidential elections has the victor taken the electoral vote, but not the popular vote:

In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral vote—that is he received more votes than any of the other candidates. But, no one in the four-man race won a majority, or more than 50%, in the Electoral College, so the House of Representatives decided the outcome. The House picked John Quincy Adams, who had come in second in the popular and electoral votes.

In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden won 51% of the popular vote, while Rutherford B. Hayes captured 48%. However, Hayes won 185 electoral votes, while Tilden got 184. A special electoral commission picked Hayes to be president.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison became president by winning 233 electoral votes, even though he received only 47.8% of the popular vote. His opponent, Grover Cleveland, garnered 48.6% of the popular vote, yet received only 168 electoral votes.

Then we have Bush Jr. I think we all know that story... ;)

SC

SC is right here. Bush I lost both electoral/popular votes, mainly because he wasn't a very good president.

And as it is, I support the electoral system. It allows states like Montana and Wyoming to make a difference. If they didn't have electoral votes, compaigners would only focus on California, Texas and New York.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
SC is right here. Bush I lost both electoral/popular votes, mainly because he wasn't a very good president.

And as it is, I support the electoral system. It allows states like Montana and Wyoming to make a difference. If they didn't have electoral votes, compaigners would only focus on California, Texas and New York.

---

Plus, it means that your vote counts more. Imagine, if the Florida count were totally accurate and it came down to one person's vote for Bush or Gore. That's crazy, to think that you could be that one person who made the difference and gave the electoral win to the President.

It would be interesting to see, though, how elections turned out if we went by the popular vote. Would more people vote if they knew that they weren't voting for Electorates? Would less? I wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by diffusionx
So let's face the reality of the situation - the admissions officers will know your race, or at least have a guess at it, just because you will most likely reflect it in what you write. This is doubly true for an Ivy or Stanford, where you have about seven things you have to write. After all, whether we like to admit it or not, race is a big deal in America.

---

Shh... I know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Umm that's kind of my point. My prejudice, if that's what you want to call it, against frat guys doesn't really matter. It's a trivial thing that has become part of me due to my experience with frat houses. It has nothing to do with racism. And can you explain where I said everyone "has racist tendencies"? You can't because I didn't say it. When you speak of my prejudices, you're calling me a racist, which I'm not. Your prejudice against McDonald's in preference to Burger King is an example of what I'm speaking of. You have them, I have them, everyone does.

---

Oh...OK.

Quote:

---

Sex is part of human nature and so is violence. Both of those can be avoided. So yes, I can work against my own prejudice. Like I explained before everyone has prejudice, even if it is of a minor sort. Take George Wallace, a once staunch racist who is now a leading advocate of civil rights. For your example, one day you could change your mind, work against your dislike of McDonalds and instead prefer it to Burger King. In my example, I dislike frat guys. I met diffusionx and he seems pretty cool, so maybe I was wrong and perhaps, someday, I won't even consider frat guys to be all the same person. I'm sure Shin Johnpv is a cool guy too, but I don't know him well enough and our conversations on this board haven't been the friendliest.

---

I missunderstood the argument. I jumped in half way and made myriad assumptions and...well...you said it best:

Quote:

---

So in essence you've accomplished nothing aside from making yourself look like a fool.

---

I do this often. :(

Apology issued.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Calliander
Plus, it means that your vote counts more. Imagine, if the Florida count were totally accurate and it came down to one person's vote for Bush or Gore. That's crazy, to think that you could be that one person who made the difference and gave the electoral win to the President.

It would be interesting to see, though, how elections turned out if we went by the popular vote. Would more people vote if they knew that they weren't voting for Electorates? Would less? I wonder.

---

While I don't like the frankly undemocratic electoral college or the winner-take-all system, the electoral college does make votes more valuable. I think the 2000 election, while a mess, proved this. It also gives a state like Oklahoma a little more importance.

Going by the popular vote, while a better way to gauge a majority of the people, ultimately decreases vote value. It's just common math: if there are fewer votes available, vote value increases; increase the number of votes and vote value decreases. It's a negative correlation. So I don't think it will necessarily make things better or get more people to vote. I do have my own ideas about how to make this more democratic and increase voter turnout, but I don't know if everyone wants to hear them. Perhaps it's better off getting it's own thread.

SC

PS Captain Vegetable, don't worry about it. But I've already gone through this racism thing earlier in the thread. Forgive me for being overly testy. But being on these boards, you've probably become accustomed to a little verbal abuse as have I.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
PS Captain Vegetable, don't worry about it. But I've already gone through this racism thing earlier in the thread. Forgive me for being overly testy. But being on these boards, you've probably become accustomed to a little verbal abuse as have I.

---

And how! It seems that if you're a Christian or a Liberal (or a Conservative for that matter), all bets are off.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
And how! It seems that if you're a Christian or a Liberal (or a Conservative for that matter), all bets are off.

---

I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but I think I understand and I agree. It's best if newcomers just say their apolitical and not religious, but spiritual.

SC