<p>And, while I don’t usually site it as a source, here’s another one to chew on:</p>
<p>[Racism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism]Racism”>Racism - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Ok…
Looks like discrimination is there. Now you’re making it too easy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re saying AA is also sexist, right? </p>
<p>Affirmative Action cannot hate, as it is incapable of human emotion. Thus, it cannot respond, nor can it hate in and of itself. It requires people to do that, either good or bad. Let me point out that racism and hate based on ethnicity and race was the defacto and dejure enviornment up until the early 1970’s (and some would argue it continues until today). It is no longer legal to discriminate based on race, but there is still defacto discrimination primarily against those that do not fit the status quo or are in the majority.</p>
<p>yeah, AA is also sexist, if schools actively try to recruit females. like MIT. i don’t get your point.</p>
<p>
Slavery also cannot hate in and of itself. I guess since AA can’t be sexist, slavery can’t be racist! What are you saying here? Of course a system has no human emotions.
You mean that “majority” and “status quo” that enabled affirmative action in the first place?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm…it does not end the debate for those who disagree with the ruling by The Supreme Court.</p>
<p>
Your philosophy on government is just wrong to me. EVERYTHING should be up for debate ALL the time. The Supreme Court also argued that separate but equal was fair. I guess since you think people shouldn’t question its rulings, segregation shouldn’t have ended!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You support the status quo by making the assertion that race/ethnicity should not be considered.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not nerve. Race-blind admissions minimizes/marginalizes those that do not fit the norms set by the majority. If diversity is code for racism as you asserted earlier, then race-blind is code for it as well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it’s pretty easy. Just Google the term in the bar and press submit. Then look at all the definitions. I’m sure you’ve done it before.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Holistic admissions includes stats (in context). So, my position is not made up as you contend.</p>
<p>The difference is that you have asserted that race and ethnicity should not be considered, which marginalizes out groups. That is a personal choice of which you advocate. </p>
<p>Me, I’m happy that holistic admissions considers race/ethnicity, and The Supreme Court apparently agrees that diversity (see definition) is a social good.</p>
<p>You’ve created the false dichotomy by choosing race as the only characteristic that should not be considered.</p>
<p>
Google also does nonsense to English translations-</p>
<p>Your particular answer translates to “I don’t know”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>somedumbnoob, I completely agree with you on that one. It’s the whole point of freedom of speech & expression. Without debate+discussion, we’d all be sheep [metaphorically].</p>
<p>**had to add that “metaphorically” in there or else soon IsleBoy will argue the point that people can’t be sheep literally</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank goodness for reasonable people, or we wouldn’t have holistic admissions policies, would we? Or, equal rights for women. Or, the Civil Rights Movement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Much like your not considering socioeconomics and SAT test scores in all 50 states as per the College Board. I guess were even.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is right, and laws move with the times. Now, now, whose creating strawmen? The fact remains that you chose race/ethnicity as the defining characteristic of what should not be included in a holistic admissions process.<br>
Thus, you made it an issue.</p>
<p>And, I never asserted that the SC decision was right or wrong, I said that they made a decision which happens to coincide with my philosophy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I like being verbose as well, I respect your right to say what you want in this forum.</p>
<p>I do take exception for your pronouncement that my philosophy of government (how you know that about me is debatable) is somehow wrong tends to not broker a debate. Again, Right/Wrong–false dichotomy. Most policies fall in between the two.</p>
<p>Now who is playing judge?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought we were having a debate. Freedom of speech & expression, now how am I preventing you from exercising those rights?</p>
<p>You’re free to disagree with The Supreme Court and anyone else for that matter.</p>
<p>^^ u remind me of this kid at my school who likes to argue just for argument’s sake. another trait of him is that he never actually believed in any of the things he argued for; he actually sided with the majority the whole time.</p>
<p>& isleboy, i didn’t say you were preventing freedom of expression & speech. i just said that I think somedumbnoob is right about questioning the government because of those rights.</p>
<p>
I actually don’t know what you were trying to say with that one. How does that relate to race?
I didn’t create anything. You were using the court as a reference in a manner roughly equivalent to “they like AA diversity- so should you!” I’m just saying that anything governments do is up for scrutiny.</p>
<p>Obviously no one is going to convince anyone else of anything. I’ve spent way too long arguing about AA here for a lifetime. Agree to disagree? Bye.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People who implemented the practice of slavery, and the government that supported it were racist. The idea of slavery while bad, could not have been a force if it did not involve individuals, groups, and governments that defined it as an acceptable practice.</p>
<p>As for racist and sexist, the terms require the power to initiate inequity on the groups who have traditionally enjoyed power and defined the status quo.</p>
<p>Thus, while URMs can be prejudice against non-URMs, and women can be prejudice against men. It is non-URMs and men that still control many positions in government that affect public policy. Ditto for business.</p>