<p>"I wonder how he feels about Barry Bonds."</p>
<p>Barry Bonds admitted under oath that he obtained steroids illegally. Of course, he's guilty of steroid usage. What's your point?</p>
<p>Bonds said he inadvertantly used some clear and cream given to him by his trainer, hardly something that makes him guilty. Don't think that for a second that black America and white America agree on that issue, because they don't. And if he's so guilty, why can't they just prosecute the guy and get it over with? You saw the Michael Vick treatment. How many tests has bonds ever failed? But that's not the REAL point...</p>
<p>With the generations blacks are behind whites in not just this society but all over the globe and arguing against AA [is] 100% RACIST!! If a few more blacks getting opportunities now than they did 30 yrs ago,...then get over it. ... And if you're looking for constructive, why don't you start writing the lawmakers of this country about the obvious injustices that go on against black people that America keeps denying. I'm mad, but not so mad that I can't be pinpoint accurate about the state of race relations in America. Particularly when it comes to black males. I wonder, how much of your lifestyle are you willing to give up so that us "minorities" may get some better opportunities in the world. I can tell you the answer to that, but you've all ready answered that question yourself with this fruitless argument against AA, which will never truly threaten the status quo anyway.</p>
<p>And if you feel that by questioning my competence on this issue that you can deter me than you are very sadly mistaken. It's just another attempt to play stupid and not face up to what's been going on in the world for hundreds of years.</p>
<p>And did you say you hope racism is destroyed to make AA a thing of the past? Somebody, check this guys pulse and see if he's breathing please!!! I know you know how stupid that sounds!!</p>
<p>Yes, he inadvertently didn't notice the 30 pounds of muscle he put on and the 3 hat sizes he increased by. He inadvertently thought steroids were flaxseed oil. He inadvertently started hitting HR's at twice the rate of before at age 38. Bonds has failed tests. He failed an amphetamines test and tried to blame it on Mark Sweeney. He has since backed off those allegations. He hasn't failed any steroids tests because he stopped taking them after steroid testing was instituted in 2003. I firmly believe he is still using HGH, which the MLB does not test for.</p>
<p>And this is coming from a die-hard Bonds and Giants fan. I don't see him as a cheater since he hasn't been proven to have broken any baseball rules. I think he is 100% a criminal for obtaining steroids illegally. He received immunity in the BALCO case in exchange for his testimony. Otherwise, he might be sitting in jail right now.</p>
<p>This is not a race issue with Bonds although some have tried to make it one. The fact that you think so only highlights your own one-sided racialized view of the world.</p>
<p>And thanks for proving my point, guilty until proven guilty. Another fighter for injustice ? The view that Barry Bonds [is] a criminal, follows the statu quo and the ridiculously racist media. Yeah that's right, RACIST RACIST RACIST RACIST. And one thing is for sure. Whether they have the courage to admit it or not, black people don't share that stinking view of Barry Bonds. Why don't[these same people] go investigate how many other crooked NBA officials there are out there. Or write a post on how much of a crook Bill Belichek is for spying on Jets coaches...DURING A GAME! Why no scathing article denouncing racial profiling.</p>
<p>TehRahk: Although I can not claim to know as much as the policymakers and lawyers who take care of these issues, based on my personal opinion I think it is best to target the issue at the roots and not at the college level. Pre-K to 12th grade is when most of the academic development takes place. Children form good or bad habits when it comes to a school environment and they form heros and role models at that crucial age. Somehow, if possible, I would target this problem of less minorities in college at a lower socioeconomic sectors. The reason I do not think college should be where the discrepancies between socioeconomics should be compensated is because I believe it is much more effective to plant a seed than to transplant a tree. Furthermore, since I believe education above the high-school level is a privilege and not a civil right, admissions should be based primarily on merit.</p>
<p>datdude: you have yet to take my advice and speak with your brain. Arguing against AA does not make a person racist. As I have learned from norcalguy, arguing for AA does not make you racist either. You can look at it either way and apparently you can't use your brain to think through issues. Your posts are overly emotional and lack any substantial content as to make toilet paper seem like gold in comparison.</p>
<p>"I wonder, how much of your lifestyle are you willing to give up so that us "minorities" may get some better opportunities in the world." Actually, I plan to do a lot for minorities in the future. My career path and dreams are based off of these intentions. I will not disclose this information because you don't know me. Do you also want to ask me out on a date? Why must you rely on ad homiem logical fallacies so much? Perhaps it is due to the lack of logic in everything your face utters?</p>
<p>"AA, which will never truly threaten the status quo anyway." I dare you to read - make your mind useful:
"Recent Supreme Court decisions (especially Adarand v. Pena) will have the effect of significantly reducing the scope of acceptable federal government affirmative action programs. In that case, the Court applied to federal actions the standard already binding on states and localities: programs must serve a "compelling" interest and must be "narrowly tailored." An analysis by discrimination law expert Paul Gewirtz reaches the following conclusions: </p>
<p>Objectives such as enhancing "diversity" and "inclusion" or addressing general "societal discrimination" do not qualify as compelling.
A specific showing of particular discrimination, going beyond simple statistical disparities among racial and ethnic groups, must be made.
Even when a compelling interest is found, race-based methods may be used only after race-neutral methods are considered and found wanting, only to the extent needed to remedy the identified discrimination, only when the plaintiffs seeking a racial preference have themselves suffered from past discrimination, and only if undue burdens on non- beneficiaries (such as layoffs) are avoided. </p>
<p>There are, in addition, legal developments in the application of constitutional law to the states. In 1994, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a University of Maryland scholarship program restricted to African-American students (Podberesky v. Kirwan). Last year, the Fifth Circuit rejected an admissions procedure at the University of Texas Law School that divided applicants into two groups -- first, blacks and Mexican-Americans, and second, all others -- and then applied different admissions cut-offs to the two groups. The Court held that the law school's interest in diversity did not constitute a "compelling state interest" and that the school could not take race into account in any form in its admissions process (Hopwood. v. Texas). The Supreme Court let both decisions stand without further review. While as a matter of law other states are not absolutely debarred from continuing race-restricted scholarships or preferential admissions policies, the scholarly consensus is that these programs are unlikely to survive all but certain legal challenge."
Source: <a href="http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/IPPP/1QQ.HTM%5B/url%5D">http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/IPPP/1QQ.HTM</a></p>
<p>That part about public opinion may interest you too. If you don't consider supreme court cases as threatening the status quo, then I don't know what does.</p>
<p>"And did you say you hope racism is destroyed to make AA a thing of the past? Somebody, check this guys pulse and see if he's breathing please!!! I know you know how stupid that sounds!!"
You like racism? I don't understand you. It is truely sad that when someone claims they want racism to be a thing of the past that others take it as a joke. Dreams precede actions.</p>
<p>yes, anyone complaining about AA who hasn't fought to prevent the conditions by which the foundation for AA was built is a racist in my book. It's not all about me arguing for AA, cause black people in mass have not been the beneficiaries. ESPECIALLY black men, who in America are hated, whether hard-working and aspiring for the American dream or oppressed and depressed because of the despair of not being equipped to compete in a very competitive world, standing on street corners, steered into a life of hopelessness and crime, waiting to be harassed by the cops. If you've never asked why the black professional athelete is so despised in America than you are a supporter of it all. And I certainly believe you when you say you believe education should be based on privilege and merit. Who has all the privilege in this country? Coincidental for you to feel that way, huh? And forget enhancing diversity, we need to be enhancing opportunity. And addressing general societal discrimination does not qualify as compelling? Do you know what you and your discrimination law expert can go do? How many days were either of you a black man? Therefore, how can you speak as to how to deal with discrimination? You have never dealt with it on any level that registers and you are the perpetrators. Stop your rhetoric because we've all heard it before. But you haven't heard the likes of me yet, nor will you stop hearing it. You lose. No, but wait...you always win, right?</p>
<p>So theslowclap: So if you agree it is necessary to destroy the problem at the root and thus admitting that low income students do not have adequate education systems to compete with others come time for applying to college. What is your reason for wanting to abolish AA in the near future (as opposed to waiting until a solution to destroy the problem at the root is proposed and in action)? </p>
<p>Getting an education is a priviledge no matter what level it is. Around the world millions of children are denied an education. </p>
<p>Why does college suddenly become a priviledge? What's different?</p>
<p>Why is it necessary to you to continue the cycle of...</p>
<p>Inferior Elementary School to Inferior Middle School to Inferior High School and then finally Inferior College (or Sadly no college at all.)</p>
<p>A college education isn't, in my book, a "privilege," but a necessity in our times. And if we are talking about court cases, the last I heard, the Supreme Court in the Michigan cases said that a college can voluntarily decide to take race into account as one factor in making admissions decisions in order to meet the school's goal of having a diverse student body. [A school can't assign extra points on the basis of race, can't have separate admissions lists, can't fill spaces based on a quota, however.] I think there are several excellent reasons for having a diverse student body and many of these reasons were discussed in the Michigan Supreme Court opinions and briefs and elsewhere on the CC boards.</p>
<p>When heated discussions against the use of AA in college admissions arise, I always wonder why there is no outrage about legacy admits, athletic admits and the other favored admits (development, celebrities) even when some of these people are not the "best" qualified in terms of scores, GPA and EC's. Because isn't that one major objection to the use of AA -- that it supposedly denies admission to "better" qualified students?</p>
<p>Definitely, I agree a college education is necessary. </p>
<p>The problem arises because minorities and low-income students suddenly have a choice of where to go for education when time for college comes around. Now they have the freedom to go to any college, instead of being stuck in a "school district." School districts in Education are a terrible idea. Many countries don't have school districts. Students are able to pick and choose what school to go to and thus schools become more competitive to provide the best education. I personally know countless people who have lied to go to better schools, which are always in wealthier areas.</p>
<p>In this case, college becomes a priviledge once you get to the college level because the wealthier and the majority are not able to keep superior education exclusive to majority and wealthy students. Thus, they feel they are "losing" a spot and have had some injustice against them when colleges acknowledge their unfair advantage. </p>
<p>I'm also curious why other definitely preferential treatment are not contended.</p>
<p>College IS a priviledge and SHOULD require (as it does) academic merit to get in. AA isn't about letting undeserving people into college, which is the stereotype that is perpetuated when people say things like "everyone deserves college!" It makes it sound like colleges are just letting URMs in.</p>
<p>The point of AA is to give people with less opportunity a chance to compete in the admissions process. A rich kid who has an Intel Science thingy, 20 APs and a giant list of Ecs compared to a poor kid who stayed in school when many of his classmates dropped out, got good grades but have no APs, and worked instead of had ECs... on paper it doesn't compare. BUT that doesn't mean letting the poor kid in is giving a spot away to someone less deserving. He succeeded in his environment and therefore may go far at a Good College. AA being about race is a flaw, and should be changed. But when you look at the statistics between race and income, it's a small flaw and its better than no AA at all.</p>
<p>datdude: "You have never dealt with [discrimination] on any level that registers and you are the perpetrators." Yes, I have dealt with discrimination. Now let's calm down, take a napie, and try to understand what I'm going to say. You don't know me. </p>
<p>"And I certainly believe you when you say you believe education should be based on privilege and merit." Thank you.</p>
<p>As a side note, it is impossible to win a discussion. Do you look for a winner every time you talk to someone? If so, you need help....Chill man. My views have been posted already so I'm done expressing my feelings. Apparently, all you can do is pull the race card.</p>
<p>"And thanks for proving my point, guilty until proven guilty. Another fighter for injustice are you? Well you and slowclap should be out forming another branch of the NAACP. You seem peculiarly opinionated about Barry Bonds being a criminal, but that view follows the statu quo and the ridiculously racist media. Yeah that's right, RACIST RACIST RACIST RACIST. And one thing is for sure. Whether they have the courage to admit it or not, black people don't share your stinking view of Barry Bonds. Since you are so sure about Barry Bonds, why don't you go investigate how many other crooked NBA officials there are out there. And why don't you write a post on how much of a crook Bill Belichek is for spying on Jets coaches...DURING A GAME! Why don't you write a scathing article denouncing racial profiling. I promise you, you will stop posting because you will very soon make yourself sound dumber than you have all ready made yourself sound."</p>
<p>You're joking, right? Bonds admitted to using steroids for which he didn't have a prescription. He is a criminal. It has nothing to do with his race. It has everything to do with illicit drug use. YOU are the one who brought up Barry Bonds out of nowhere. Being a huge Giants and Barry fan (see my screen name?), it peaked my interest. I have no idea why you are dragging all of these other sports stories into it. What Bill Belichick did or authorized was not illegal under federal law. He is not a criminal. Cheater? Yes. Bonds is a criminal. Cheater? No. Breaking sports rules does not make you a criminal. Pete Rose was not a criminal. Breaking federal laws make you a criminal. White people who break federal laws are criminals. Black people who break federal laws are criminals. Capiche?</p>
<p>TehRahk: "So if you agree it is necessary to destroy the problem at the root and thus admitting that low income students do not have adequate education systems to compete with others come time for applying to college. What is your reason for wanting to abolish AA in the near future (as opposed to waiting until a solution to destroy the problem at the root is proposed and in action)?"</p>
<p>I think you are forgetting where I stand on AA. I believe AA on a grander scale is doing more harm than good (I already typed why I think this previously, and so I will save both of us the time of not mentioning it here). So to help you understand, if you see a leak in the wall, you would patch it up as soon as possible. I admit that it does help the people at the lower socioeconomic level, but it does more harm than good for society as a whole (those not admitted, the economic loss, racial tensions, for example). If you are going to say that the URMs are JUST AS qualified as the other applicants then why have AA in the first place? If you further agree that they are not just as qualified but need AA because it is compensating for their unfortunate circumstances, then why cant you accept that the institution could have admitted someone with more merit? Note: I am not asking for you to explain to me the need for AA; I want you to explain to me why proponents of AA always claim that the URM took my spot argument is false.</p>
<p>Why does college suddenly become a priviledge? What's different?
Whats different is that people are forced to go to school up until the end of high-school by the state. Whats different about college is that it is not required by law. College is more of a consumer good rather than a general education requirement. By privilege I meant that it is not a civil right to go to college, and therefore, everyone is not entitled to go to college.</p>
<p>Odyssey: the reason I brought up court cases was to prove datdude wrong. He claimed that people holding views against AA are marginal and that these sentiments will never change the status quo. I could have simply said that policies are changing to decrease AA, but knowing datdude and his hate for the government, I knew it would be best to quote an external source.</p>
<p>I will try not to post redundant opinions because this is becoming circular. However, I posted this because TehRahk requested my response.</p>
<p>You need to face reality. I am not a politician. I'm very certain that you would fail in any task relating to science because you do not trust anything in this physical world even though there is enough compelling evidence to make a blind, deaf, mute, dumb, brain-dead person to believe (refer to Barry Bonds example).</p>
<p>"You don't have any more entitlement in America than anyone else here, do you understand that?"
I understand that. I wish you would too.</p>
<p>"You must think you're America's sweetheart because you have the complexion for the connection."
Again, refer to previous post about you being homosexual, wanting to ask me out on a date.</p>
<p>"You don't even see where black people are discriminated against in America. That's pathetic. And you're no racist right? You will deny until the end because you are trained to do so."
Again, refer to previous post about you being homosexual. 1. You don't know me. 2. I am not a racist. 3. Nobody is training me to think in a certain way. 4. I respect that you have your own opinions, and I'm entitled to have my own. 5. You base too many of your arguments on ad homiem attacks that have nothing to do with AA.</p>
<p>"I don't have faith in anyone who thinks like you."
It is ludicrous to assume that the entire government thinks like me.</p>
<p>"AA is just a pacifier, an action brought about by years of discrimination, and like always, it is not good enough."
So we agree AA is "never going to change the status quo" as you claim and that it is not good enough. I'm glad we agree.</p>
<p>"And that leak in the wall analogy is probably the weakest I've ever heard and I'm not even trying to be insulting."
I was trying to clarify how I feel so that TehRehk would understand my motivations for wanting to get rid of AA before implementation of other programs succeed. It is not an analogy to prove AA as wrong. Go learn how to read or at least when you misquote me do it correctly. Furthermore, I could claim you are the scum of the earth and that you are wasting precious air that could be used to filtrate the sewers. Although this is what I feel, my claim doesn't make it true.</p>
<p>"You have failed to address any other issue but AA, and that slowclap, makes it obvious that you could care less about black people being discriminated against."
Wrong again. Go learn to read. Last time I checked, the topic of this dicussion was AA. However, I do concentrate on other race issues regarding minorities. Furthermore, just because I discuss AA does not automatically lead to the conclusion that I do not care about other discriminations. Again, following your logic, it would be like saying because you like to hit on men on internet forums, you are a racist, which is definitely not true (right?).</p>
<p>"You're probably mad about the anti-lynching laws. You're probably mad slavery was ever abolished."
One of the most ridiculous things I've heard. Where do you come up with this stuff? Again, go learn to read.</p>
<p>I got work to do now. Remember datdude: my lack of response does not mean "you win." Only retards think this way about conversing with people. Also, I do not want to know where you go to school. Stop it.</p>
<p>Back to what I was saying, the number of people that will ever be affected by AA on the other side, or the "a minority stole my spot" side would not compare to the number of people who have suffered and are still suffering because of racial discrimination, even if AA is instituted for the next 2000 years. A correct comparision would be the new legislation passed last week regarding student financial aid. Both houses of Congress passed a bill that will significantly reduce the interest on student loans and significantly raise the maximum amount on Pell Grants. Now,the lending institutions are crying foul, without taking any accountability for the many years of inappropriateness, improprieties and illegalities they indulged in while setting student loan recipients back years financially. In this case, as in the case of AA, it's just too bad that what has transpired will affect the lending institutions (they stand to lose billions), but the most important issue was to change the current system in place. The most urgent obligation was to the students, not the lending institutions. The character I went back and forth with lacks understanding, compassion and empathy to anyone but the people who think like him and own similar wealth and opportunity. How do I know this? It is painfully obvious. He is an elitist, a product of those in this country trying to preserve the good 'ol boy system and keep blacks and all other unpopular minorities "in their place."</p>
<p>Now that wasn’t that hard was it? Thank you for looking at the issue more objectively and not calling me a racist every two sentences. This style of writing makes it much easier to focus on the issues than on you or me.</p>
<p>“How can you fight against AA without providing an explanation for the behavior that exist in America today, particularly against black males?”
I acknowledge that racism does exist. I do not acknowledge that all black males or minorities deserve preferential treatment based on the unfortunate circumstances of the past at the cost of neglecting other people who most likely had nothing to do with their past misfortunes. Furthermore, you are assuming that every non-minority is a racist. You are also assuming that every minority is underprivileged. I have explained previously why AA makes no sense to base eligibility of benefits on race (please read it so I will not have to explain again). Racism should not be fought at a level where one race is given special treatment for the sake of trying to compensate for the past. This truly is as you put it previously, “a patch.” What I believe happens in this scenario is that the minority group is viewed as separate from the rest of society and institutions sprinkle different colored faces – yellow, brown, purple, whatever – into the crowd in order to avoid the real issues. And the people who do in fact make it into the institutions based on preferential treatment are usually not the ones from the lower socioeconomic levels. I think we can agree on this because you claim that AA will not compensate for these groups “even if AA is instituted for the next 2000 years.” On top of that, people who are not a part of this minority group will then have less spots (whether it be 1 less or 1,000 less) who may then have resentment toward the minority groups with these benefits.</p>
<p>Where we may differ in how we view the African-American community is in how much power they hold today. I believe they have many successful figures in society, far more than for example, the Asians. They dominate the face of sports, they have representatives in Congress, they have teachers, lawyers, doctors, and they even have presidential candidates. On the other hand, the Asian-American community has almost no political representatives, no sports players, no media coverage, and yet they still manage to be competitive when it comes to corporations and education. My point is that AA targets an entire race based on their histories and not the present situation, putting one race at a disadvantage or advantage purely based on biological reasons.</p>
<p>“He is an elitist, a product of those in this country trying to preserve the good 'ol boy system and keep blacks and all other unpopular minorities "in their place."”
Although you have improved slightly in conversing like a human being, you apparently have yet to read about the logical fallacies. And trust me, I wish I were in such a position. And honestly, I would support AA if I were convinced that it is truly the best thing for society in terms of combating racism and reducing racial tensions because of those systematically shafted.</p>