Affirmative Action and George W. Bush

[Yodayyeeewho]

How affirmative action helped George W.
By Michael Kinsley

(c) 2003 CNN
Monday, January 20, 2003 Posted: 12:00 PM EST (1700 GMT)


The president might ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?"

George W. Bush is all for diversity, he explained last week, but he doesn't care for the way they do it at the University of Michigan. The Administration
has asked the Supreme Court to rule the Michigan system unconstitutional because of the scoring method it uses for rating applicants.

"At the undergraduate level," said Bush, "African-American students and some Hispanic students and Native American students receive 20 points out of a
maximum of 150, not because of any academic achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African American, Hispanic or Native American."

If our President had the slightest sense of irony, he might have paused to ask himself, "Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?" It wasn't because of any
academic achievement: his high school record was ordinary. It wasn't because of his life experience--prosperous family, fancy prep school--which was all too
familiar at Yale. It wasn't his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math.

They may not have had an explicit point system at Yale in 1964, but Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of a politically
influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a fancy prep school. These forms of affirmative action still go on...

[Reality check]

And those types of "affirmative action" are not prohibited by the Constitution. Whether legacy bonuses are good or bad is irrelevant to the Michigan case. That case deals with racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination is unconstitutional. Period. It doesn't matter which race is being discriminated against.

Trying to justify racial discrimination against the members of some races is a quick trip down a slippery slope. The usual argument for racial discrimination is that its purpose is to make up for past discrimination. First, this ignores that the individuals who end up being affected (and it is always individuals who ge tthe benefit/penalty of racial discrimination) were not parties to what is supposed to be made up for. Second, it is not very effective where education is concerned. If the goal is diversity, will it really make the campus more diverse to admit a wealthy black over a lower income white? Does it help to put inner city blacks in a university that their school system did not prepare them for and where they will flunk out in highly disproportionate numbers?

President Bush is on the right track to truly attacking the base problem. Improve the quality of education in poorer districts by competition, not just throwing good money after bad. Then you will not have to worry about practicing racial discrimination to meet quotas.
________
LoveAnalSexx (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/LoveAnalSexx/)

[RkFast]

When an applicant for Michican U gets "20 points" for being black, but only "6 points" for earning the highest possible score on the SAT, then something is wrong.
________
Brigitteh live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Brigitteh)

[RutgersApproach]

At rutgers the admissions system is blind because a white person, can check off black if they wish on the admission page.. very weird system

[Locutus]

If you only listen to the statements issued by the RNC or Bush, one gets the impression that Michigan gives extra points for race—and for nothing else. That, of course, is completely untrue—but you won’t ever learn it from "The Shrub". You won’t learn that white kids who come from poverty backgrounds can get those 20 bonus points too. You won’t learn that applicants can get 16 points if they’re from the Upper Peninsula—an area that is mainly white. And you won’t learn that other elements of UM’s system also tend to favor whites. For example, 4 points can go to alumni kids, who are predominantly white. Those 10 points for a rigorous high school? Most often, they will go to kids from the ’burbs or from private schools, who will most often be white. And how about that 12 points for the SAT—a test for which affluent kids can gain special preparation? Why can’t Bush tell you the truth—that whatever we decide about UM’s system, it includes provisions that favor whites as well as that 20 for blacks?

Affirmative action is not a way to discriminate against you poor oppressed white people. It is a way of ensuring that all races get to participate in the American dream - not just rich kids, not just the progeny of the elite. SAT scores are not as important as good grades in high school. The SAT test is also a culturally biased test. Furthermore, great SAT scores do not necessarily translate to good grades - case in point Bush got a 1206 - well above the national average, yet he was an average student.

By the way, Yale rarely accepts student that make less than 1300 on their SATs. I guess it was okay for them to discriminate against a the kid that got a higher score than Bush but was denied entry.

You people need a reality check!

[Liberal Thinker]

Of all the examples that you tried to demonstrate your point with, none of them are relevant. It is, however, rather pathetic watching you try to justify racial discrimination. The Constitution of the United States prohibits racial discrimination. The Constitution of the United States does not prohibit wealth discrimination.

You try to demonstrate that this or that "favors" whites, but the problem that you have is, nothing in the UM policy gives points for BEING white. Let the University of Michigan address the other points you raised on the merit of those arguments, but don't try to justify your racial discrimination by using them.

If UM wants to give points based on need, fine. If they want to do it based on the poor K-12 education that many minorities receive, fine. If they want to do give points to the top students of each high school, whether predominately black or predominately white, fine...just don't do it based on race, it's unconstitutional, my friend.

[manhattanlady]

some will say that affirmative action is biased and unconstitutional. it supports minorities leaving white people with nothing. some will say that affimative action allows minorities to have equal access to opportunities that are given to whites. face it... america is white and white people are given many priviledges but some are just too blind to see. those of you that are crying and whining about affirmative action should walk yourself to a social service center, talk to a minority person, learn about their story and struggle. maybe then you'll realize why affirmative action exists.

[max]

The argument that the constitution prohibits racial discrimination, but not other "discrimination" such as admittance by legacy, is specious at best. Affirmative action is not about racial discrimination, but redistributing goods - such as education - that have been enjoyed by whites through white privilege for years. More importantly, the Court's interpretation that the equal protection clause is "color blind" is disingenuous; taking into account neither the history under which the clause was drafted, nor the ills it tried to remedy. For all you folks who believe it is so unfair that someone with a lesser SAT (or whatever) score is favored over a higher score, did you ever stop to consider that the lesser score may have something more to offer. Get over yourselves - apply to another school.
________
ADULT AMATEUR VIDEO (http://www.fucktube.com/)

[uberuser]

There already is affirmative action in place on college campuses, and has been for a long time.
If college campuses let people in who were qualified without any other basis, 70% of the college student population would be female. Why? Females across the board have better grades, higher standardized test scores and more extra curricular activities.
Yet, we see that women make up about 55% of college students. Colleges are trying to make things more equal. To not discriminate against white males.
I don't hear anyone complaining about that. So why not even out the playing field a little? Let some marginalized people have a chance.

[NYURepublican]

Let them have a chance...by artificially lowering the standards for them and setting them up to fail in greater numbers, all while discriminating against qualified students because of their race? You affirmative action junkies need to take a look at the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

Title VI, Sec. 601
"No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance"

Funny...I don't see the clause where it says discrimination against whites is okay. We passed civil rights laws to stop racial discrimination, period. Not to have it swing the other way.

Also, here's data from the US Dept. of Education debunking the lie that men get preference in college: "Women earn more BA's and master's degrees than men. For every 100 men who earn a bachelor's degree, 133 women do; by 2010...the gap will widen to 142 women to 100 men. Undergraduate women outnumber undergraduate men by 60-40 on campuses as varied as the University of North Carolina, Boston University and [my future alma mater] New York University. More women than men are in law school, and they're closing the gap in medical schools."

As if it weren't enough that you AA-pushers are so willing to break federal law. You can quit playing fast and loose with the statistical evidence, too.



[i]Edited by: NYURepublican at: 5/29/03 11:47:30 pm

________
Sofhia_wet (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Sofhia_wet)

[max]

If you insist on quoting law, please refer to WHY the law was enacted; i.e., the intent and purpose. I still have not read a compelling argument concerning legacy (other than a feeble point about constitutionality). The rhetoric of AA junkies etc. is fine, but in the end, does nothing to address the real issue discussed - hypocrisy of legacy v. racial preference. I guess, as hard as I try, I will genuinely never understand how Republicans can summarily dismiss this point by pointing to legal authority taken out of context (I'm not trying to be a jerk, I really do not understand). I know self-interest is a powerful thing, but for once try to put yourselves in the shoes of somebody else, think, then speak.
________
EXTREME Q VAPORIZERS (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/extreme)

[NYURepublican]

"Feeble points" about Constitutionality? Yeah, you're probably right. Why do we bother with that old rag anyway?
________
Wong Amat Tower Condo Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[max]

Feeble meaning the argument is feeble, not the document folks like yourself convienently interpret to fit your views without a mention, or perhaps understanding, of its history. Resorting to sarcasm does not address the points raised. If an intelligent response escapes you NYU, then perhaps you should sit on the sideline and let another answer.
________
Walter p. museum (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Walter_P._Chrysler_Museum)

[NYURepublican]

The plain language of the United States Code and the 14th Amendment speaks for me. We are all guaranteed equal protection of the laws regardless of race. The Constitution and our laws mean what they say, not what liberal social engineers try to twist them into meaning. If you want to be honest about instituting racial preferences, at least have the guts to admit that they violate the law as it is currently written; then, if you want racial discrimination in the schools to be legal, you can advocate for a Constitutional Amendment to change the parts of the Equal Protection Clause that don't fit your ideology quite right.

"All minorities are equal. But some miniorities are more equal than others." - George Orwell, Animal Farm. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 6/2/03 9:29:48 pm

________
MILF LIVE (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/mature-women/)

[max]

Of course you read the 14th Amendment's inclusive use of "all persons" broadly -- it's the only leg you have to stand on. However, how does the fact that the 14th Amendment (the one ratified in 186 being enacted at a time when America was grappling with exactly how to secure political rights for the Freedmen, comport with your view? Aside from the political debates at the time, from a purely practical standpoint there was no need in 1868 to secure equal protection for all of society. Hence, your "liberal social engineer" comment makes no sense. There was no engineering going on, merely the practical problem of securing civil rights for the Freedmen. Only the Court's "engineering" of the Amendment has led to the current color-blind theory your so fond of. I could school you all day long on the 14th Amendment's intent and purpose, but what I'm interested in is your view of legacy v. affirmative action. Do you have an argument besides your limited understanding of the 14th A? Please tell me why legacy is OK, but not AA. By the way, I'd rather hear your critical thoughts on the matter, not pithy quotes which ultimately lend nothing to the debate.
________
FREE PORN STREAMING (http://www.fucktube.com/)

[NYURepublican]

Ah, I see. Silly me, this whole time I was interpreting "all persons" to mean "all persons", whereas had I been an enlightened liberal such as yourself, I would have known that "all persons" really means "the racial groups that we deem to be appropriate".

To be honest with you, I'm not so crazy about the whole legacy policy either, but the fact of the matter is that we didn't fight a civil war, pass a civil rights law, enact a constitutional amendment, have a Supreme Court ruling, and mobilize the national guard to end discrimination on the basis of parentage. We DID, however, do all those things to end discrmination on the basis of race. The fact that now the pendulum has swung the other way and liberals just want to change the race who receives the short end of the discrimination doesn't change any of that.

And what's more, legacies don't play nearly the role in admissions that race does. The U of Michigan affirmative action policy gives students 3 points for being a legacy; having the right skin color gets you 20 points. That means your skin color is worth more than the all your extracurriculars and the difficulty of your high school curriculum.

I happen to have an inside view of this situation; I work in the admissions office for a major northeastern tier-one university. As someone who sees all the wheeling and dealing that goes on, I can tell you that you're crazy if you think that legacy has anywhere NEAR the beneficial effect that being black or Hispanic has on your application. Colleges bend the rules constantly to admit students of color; the efforts made on behalf of legacy students pale in comparison. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that legacies are the equivalent of skin color in determining your admissibility to colleges.

Aside from the fact that affirmative action hurts qualified white and Asian students, there's the fact that it also hurts the students of "preferred" racial groups that it's designed to help. You don't do a black or Hispanic student whose SAT score is below the national average any favors by lowering the standards and admitting him/her into an academic environment where he or she just can't compete. Lots of black students flunk out of schools like Harvard and MIT, whereas they may have to gone on to be quite successful if they had attended colleges more suited to their own academic backgrounds.

I could go on and on (and maybe I will, later) but I'll take this opportunity to break off and let you share your response. And although you admonished me for closing with a relevant quote, I'd like to end again with the words of someone who was far more articulate than myself when it came to discussing matters of race and the need for colorblindness in America, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. : "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."



________
Couples Webcams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/straight-couples/)

[max]

Let me begin by saying I was not trying to "admonish" you for quoting, I'm more interested in your thoughts rather than the thoughts of authors and history figures I've already read. About your thoughts -- OK, now where getting somewhere (based on past NYU Rep. posts - despite my disagreement - I knew you had more to offer than sarcasm).

About "all persons" the debate is futile. You refuse to take into account the history under which the 14th A. was enacted, instead you fall back on sarcasm - indicating a lack of understanding. If "all persons" is what you say it is, why did the abolitionists find this language unacceptable during debate. In any event, I really don't care to get into a constitutional argument with someone who clearly is not prepared to discuss the finer points of the law (honestly it's not fair, your not a lawyer).

Yes, I agree that AA has been pushed in certain circumstances to include those that are not qualified - a definite political downfall in light of the intended purpose. However, you seem to make the sweeping generalization that the negative aspect of AA applies in most cases - not true. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Accepting folks into schools like Harvard, Yale or NYU based on legacy (ala Bush) is just as wrong, unfair and unhelpful as you suggest.

I agree NYU that color-blindness is the goal, but do you honestly think that we have reached that point? Your email suggests that we have, or in the alternative, you choose to ignore reality to further self interest. I'm not crazy about AA either, but reality dictates that the playing field still needs leveling - until that day comes, I believe we need systems in place to confront the prejudices of the past that continue today.
________
Ford Probe History (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Probe)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:I really don't care to get into a constitutional argument with someone who clearly is not prepared to discuss the finer points of the law (honestly it's not fair, your [sic] not a lawyer).

Yeah, yer right. I don't noe two much 'bout lawyerin', 'cept what I read in them thar tex-books they giv me at the col-lij.

Give me a break. You don't have to be a lawyer to know the historical context in which the 14th Amendment was passed. You also don't have to be a lawyer to see that it explicity prohibits all governmental discrimination on the basis or race; there is no sub-section that clarifies that the equal protection clause doesn't apply to white or Asian kids applying to college. But I agree with you, clearly further debate on this point would be unproductive, as you've got it in your head that the law has some kind of secret double-meaning that only liberals are wise enough to discern...

Quote:. I'm not crazy about AA either, but reality dictates that the playing field still needs leveling - until that day comes, I believe we need systems in place to confront the prejudices of the past that continue today.

It would be great if AA really did "level the playing field". As it is, all it accomplishes is reverse discrimination against qualified students, and the advancement of students whose academic records do not warrant it. Furthermore, it inculcates within the minority community the sense that they are powerless to achieve anything without the government giving them a bonus for the color of their skin; this has the effect of undermining any achievement that they accomplish legitimately, both within the white and non-white communities. It's a very powerful (and, I think, utterly racist) effect to be told that you can't succeed because of your skin color, and affirmative action does just that. And as we can see, AA has not made things any better for people of color; all the miserable, inner city school districts that are heavily populated by minorities are by and large run by liberal, diversity-minded, AA-friendly folks like yourself.

Affirmative action does not help anyone "get ahead", but it does do a good job of holding back qualified individuals and maintaining the mentality of victimization that black "leaders" like Jesse Jackson are so dependent upon for their power within their respective ethnic communities. Do you really think that Al Sharpton and his ilk push AA and other race-victim issues because they legitimately want to better African-Americans? On the contrary, they push those agendas because they understand that they are central to keeping the minority community in a state of permanent helplessness and dependency. AA doesn't make black people more self-dependent, it just keeps them dependent on the good will of white liberals.


Edited by: NYURepublican at: 6/3/03 12:14:23 am

________
BEST VAPORIZOR (http://www.vaporizers.net/)

[max]

Of course you do not need a law degree to understand the history of the 14th A, that was not my point. Although you obliquely reference an understanding of the Amendment, your answers to this point have contradicted that reference. Even if we, for sake of argument, agreed on your color-blind theory, I don't think we're going to have a discussion about the appropriate constitutional standard in equal protection cases anyway. And no, there is no secret double meaning, only the view of history, the development of that history and an intelligent discussion of such - which clearly escapes you, as witnessed by your resort to sarcasm. enough said.

Neat little package you have bundled together. AA is the root cause for everything from inner-city problems to the psyche of the minority. You convienently ignore the plethora of established minorities who have got "ahead" as a result of AA, instead relying on sweeping generalizations that ignore reality. I could go on, but your last sentence indicates to me the type of person this conversation is lost on. "Good will of white liberals"? Get over yourself - you talk about your view as being anti-racist, when in fact that comment patently speaks to the person you are. Grab your hood and go howl at the moon fool. Through our discussion, I have realized I am not engaged in intelligent discourse with someone who views the world different, but another racist.
________
Vaporizer review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmixODIvAtM)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:Get over yourself - you talk about your view as being anti-racist, when in fact that comment patently speaks to the person you are.

What kind of person is that...the kind of person who doesn't like white liberals? I'll readily admit to not liking liberals of any color or creed.

Ya know, you sounded pretty intelligent for a while, but I had to have known that you would eventually come home to your liberal roots and bring out the Grand Liberal All-Purpose Argument: "Call the other guy a racist."

If calling me a KKK member does something for your ego, then fire away. But seriously, how does wanting white liberals to exert LESS control over people of color make me a racist? I support color-blind policies because they are fair, they are legal, and unlike AA, have the effect of diminishing, rather than magnifying race-based distinctions in our society. You need to wake up and see that the racial preference policies of the past thirty to forty years have only widened the gulf between blacks and whites in this country, and are utterly debasing to the people they purport to help. Despite all your good intentions for the black community, which I do not doubt, and your wild, desperate allegations of racism on my part, it is the people who foster ideas like yours who are holding back African-Americans and other people of color in America.



Edited by: NYURepublican at: 6/3/03 1:18:54 am

________
NaughtyNeighbrs (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/NaughtyNeighbrs)

[max]

The first few sentences of your email are exactly the sentiments I have of you based on your last post. No, despite your thoughts, I'm not leaning on some typical core response you attribute to liberals. In fact, I thought you had something more intelligent to offer other than your last post. Honestly, yes, your comment got to me. "Good white liberal". Again, think before you write. It's not about good white this or that - THAT is exactly the kind of thought that is the crux of the problem. Without making a sweeping generalization, your post was the kind of discourse I hear from people who associate themselves with Republican theory, but neither take the time nor initiative to come up with a more thought provoking response. In fairness, let me just say that your response raised my liberal antenna to jump to a conclusion that may have been unfair. On the other hand, take a careful look at your past posts. Plenty of assumptions made by you with your "liberal" snippets.

In any event, color blind policies throughout history, particularly legal history, have been used to keep the status quo (i.e., the disparity between white power and others). Perhaps you believe that we have reached a point today where race is not a factor as it used to be. However, it is untenable to suggest color blindness has always been the Court's way - as an example - of merely promoting fairness. I can point you to more than a few opinions where color blindness was the pretext for discrimination. I happen to believe that color blindness is the prevailing argument today to deny what is obvious in my everyday life - racial discrimination is alive and kicking.

Numerous times I have been approached by people who assume that - without any personal knowledge of my beliefs etc. - I am republican, or concur in some racist joke. What accounts for this assumption other than my skin color. I can point to plenty of examples, both personal and otherwise, that indicate we do not live in a society that truly believes in equality. No, my friend, people like me are not holding back people of color, but rather folks like you who would rather ignore what is plainly obvious. Fine, disagree with the means to an end - i.e. AA does not work. But, do not piss down my neck and tell me it's raining. If you think we actually live in a color blind society, you are deluding yourself. Hey, whatever helps you sleep I guess.
________
Buy herbalaire vaporizer (http://www.vaporshop.com/herbalaire-vaporizer.html)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:). Perhaps you believe that we have reached a point today where race is not a factor as it used to be.

Not necessarily. But AA is not the way to go about it. AA is just exacerbating the situation for everyone, blacks and whites. If you want to reform the system, you have to do it from the bottom up, and not the other way around. Our elementary schools are where the disparities start; the key is to weaken the grip of the teachers' unions and to start implementing policies like school vouchers that would give low-income minority (and white) families the opportunity to send their kids to schools where they can actually learn, not the decrepit public school systems that Democrats have run into the ground over the past 50 years. Unfortunately, most people on the left seem to be just as strong in their opposition to school choice for minority families as they are in their support for affirmative action...an utterly hypocritical position to take, as far as I'm concerned.
________
H0Tandh0Rny Live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/h0tandh0rny)

[max]

Your proposed solution ("if you want to reform the system, you have to do it from the bottom up...") begs the question implicit in the quoted language. An assumption can be made by your solution. It appears you take the view that the problem which begets the need for AA is one of impropely educated people of color. Again, your argument fails to confront the issue I've addressed, to wit; how do we repair the wounds inflicted by invidious discrimination, which, continues today.

Fundamentally, you want to ignore that in our society race matters. The gist of your posts reflect the attitude that government racial distinctions are presumptively wrong. However, I'd like to know your view about racial profiling in law enforcement. Even if you truly disagree with any type of difference based on race, then why does it seem that your posts are concerned with how whites are adversely affected in the face of affirmative action. Your only argument regarding legacy and Bush is that it is not nearly as prevalent as AA. What's the point? - not to mention the fact that legacy has nothing to do with correcting past and present social ills. To the contrary, it has everything to do with money, prestige and power - the very things AA combats.

I admit that opposition to AA, in light of the laudible goal of total equality, puts defenders of AA constantly on defense. However, your views to date in this forum have failed to acknowledge the types of AA whites have enjoyed (do I really need to provide examples). Moreover, your posts have stated that AA only lowers the collective thought about people of color, ostensibly because they are receiving what they do not deserve, or AA perpetuates racial stereotypes. However, these stereotypes exist regardless of AA -- a point, with due respect, I believe you fail to understand or admit. In fact, your generalization that only less-qualified people of color benefit from AA patently stereotypical, not to mention the fact is assumes way too much.

In the end, I admit that there are, of course, white "victims" to AA. But, this is a far cry from the numerous people of color who suffer real, invidious discrimination. I don't expect you to ever embrace AA, but I implore you to stop believing the answer lies in color blindness. Acknowledge that racism, no matter how oblique, still exists. Look inside yourself and confront those demons (do you really think on a color blind basis -- I know I do not). Importantly, AA may perpetuate a racist's attitude towards people of color, but it DID NOT CREATE IT. Back to your original point, all the top notch schooling in the world will never erase many white folks views that black, brown, red, etc. skin color means inferiority. Yes, it is not a perfect system, in fact it's downright shitty, but, unfortunately, still necessary in today's society.
________
Glass pipe pictures (http://glasspipes.net/)

[NYURepublican]

Okay...the crux of your argument if favor of AA and illegal racial preference policies lies in the assumption that the US has been scarred by racism and slavery, and that residual problems resulting from these issues have made things difficult, if not impossible, for people of color in the United States. Affirmative action is thus necessary to equalize the damage that has been done to minorities in the past by damaging whites in the present.

However, when you look at immigrants from non-white nations, including "black" nations such as the Carribean and the African continent, these people tend to out-perform and advance further in society than indigenous blacks and Hispanics. (Dinesh D'Souza outlines this fact in an excellent book called What's So Great About America, which I recommend to people of all political stripes.) Why this odd disparity? Why is it that indigenous blacks and Hispanics continue to lag behind white and Asians in America, while black immigrants have practically achieved income equality with whites? Shouldn't the inherently race-tinged social system in America hinder the efforts of all people of color, regardless of origin? What kind of bizarre institutionalized racism is it that holds back a black guy from South Carolina, but not the immigrant from Nigeria?

The reason why immigrants have advanced further than indigenous minorities is a matter of perspective: many black people in America believe, like you, that "race matters", and that years of slavery and racial angst have rigged the system against them. In other words, they have a "backward-looking" perspective; a perspective propagated by Jesse Jackson and others that compares American society to an idealized social utopia, and finds America coming up short.

Immigrants, on the other hand, have a more "forward-looking" perspective. When they hear Al Sharpton screaming about how a black guy can't make it in America, they say "Are you crazy? I'm making 10 times as much money now as I did when I lived in Trinidad." In other words, they are comparing America not to utopia, but to the social reality that was the country they previously lived in. As such, they are under no false delusions about the fact that their social prospects in America are much better than anywhere else in the world, and are not adversely affected by their race. They understand that the racism that DOES exist is not part of the system, but rare and perpetrated by individuals. The result is empirically evident: immigrants coming from Africa and other nations are not mired in the past, and they go on to be much more successful in just a few generations than many indigenous minorities have managed in hundreds of years. In other words, the future-based, immigrant perspective of race in America works; the past-based, affirmative action/"Jesse Jackson" model of race simply maintains the politics of racial victimization that has not benefited blacks and strains race relations even further.

That is part of why I am so opposed to affirmative action; not only does it negatively impact whites and Asians, but it does a disservice to indigenous minorities by lying to them about their prospects for success in America. If we can break the cycle of falsehoods about race that AA has helped perpetrate in America, we can get down to the real business of ensuring that ALL Americans, regardless of race, receive the same quality of education and opportunities for success in our society.
________
LITTLESWEETY (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/LITTLESWEETY/)

[max]

Your points are noted and well taken. I've read D'Souza, but think that the two situations are not comparable. The only real strong suggestion I would make based on your reply - careful with the "illegal racial preference" rhetoric. It neither comports with the history and purpose of the Amendment, nor current law (albeit hanging from a thin thread, which the current make up of the Court will probably make short shrift of).
________
DODGE M80 (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_M80)