<p>Wow. If you can explain away opposition to civil rights, and voting rights as not racist, then you can rationalize anything. I suppose racism does not exist. And never did. </p>
<p>However, I am still curious as to whether the claim </p>
<p>"He made one stupid comment"</p>
<p>still holds? Was he in trouble because of one comment, or a history of making that comment repeatedly and a systematic opposition to civil rights and voting rights?</p>
<p>You are totally clueless. Despite the title, the VRA doesn't actually have ANYTHING to do with voting rights. You think black people wouldn't be able to vote without it? Have read ANY of it? Have you heard of ANY of the Supreme Court cases dealing with it (the Court actually found parts of it unconstitutional essentially because it was racist)? Obviously not, thus the incompetent response.</p>
<p>And of course Lott was in trouble for one comment. It was in the aftermath of the comment, all the talk was about that one comment. So yeah, unless you are a conspiracy theorist of some sort, it's pretty much a no-brainer. If the controversy was about his "history" then he wouldn't be back in the leadership, unless, again, you a some sort of conspiracy theorist who believes the entire Republican caucus is a bunch of bitter racists.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[black] immigrants...are initially more successful than many african-americans for a number of reasons. since they come from majority black countries, they are less psychologically handicapped by the stigma of race. in addition, many arrive with higher levels of education and professional experience. at first, they encounter less discrimination...there are plenty of blacks who could succeed at elite colleges, but the institutions are not doing enough to find them...they [are] overly reliant on measures like sat scores, which correlate strongly with family wealth and parental education".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. So why do these immigrant blacks get the full-benefit of Affirmative Action?! Should it not be reserved for those in true need? Again, it's the college taking the easy way out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
blacks are not as hard-working as whites in the academic realm? how are you making such a gross generalization? oh, right, the sat is a great measure for hard work, character, potential, intelligence, and engagement...i forgot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about GPA? Average hours spent on homework? Average amount of time studying for tests? Take your pick. The answer will be the same. Blacks as a group don't focus on academics as much as other races. I'm surprised I'm even arguing this. If they don't want to focus on academics - fine - but they should not be given a boost because of this.</p>
<p>The very fact that the number of blacks would plummet if a socio-economic AA were to be implemented screams that blacks are being overcompensated. It's not just leveling the playing field, it's tilting it in their direction, excusing their own faults in the process.</p>
<p>I think it's funny that a bunch of high school kids (with an obvious bias since they're now applying to college) think they know better than an admissions officer who's done research on the subject.</p>
<p>^if you never question the experts, how can you expect to understand anything?</p>
<p>
[quote]
^if you never question the experts, how can you expect to understand anything?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ditto, and experts are not infallible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
with an obvious bias since they're now applying to college
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not applying to college this year. In fact, I'm a freshman at my first choice school. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Why would we be biased just because we are applying to college? Wouldn't be just as biased (whichever way) if you EVER applied to college, which we would hope the admissions officers did at some point!</p>
<p>It's just a horrible attitude to say that because we are in high school we have no legitimacy in making arguments. I don't think it matters WHO you are arguing against, just evaluate the arguments. Furthermore, I don't think a lot of people hear take issue with the empirical findings or statistical validity of the studies AdOfficer was talking about, just the conclusions and public policy choices made as a result of them. For example, it's probably true according to some studies that URM enrollment would drop if AA were getting rid of, and we all agree on that. But AdOfficer would look at that as proof that AA needs to be maintained, while I would argue that it simply indicates that AA is handing an unfair advantage to URMs, ironically in the name of racial equality.</p>
<p>See the difference?</p>
<p>fuzzylogic...</p>
<p>that's just it...they aren't questioning me at all...they are assuming they know what they are talking about without doing much homework on this subject. and doing one's homework doesn't mean reading several articles about affirmative action...it means doing years of research, reading almost all of the relevant research done by others on the subject, working in public policy, and working at one of the most selective institutions in the country and seeing how these policies actually are applied. oh, and having advanced degrees in higher education and public policy. </p>
<p>when i have more time to address your comments sfgiants and evilasiandictator, i will...right now i have too much to read!</p>
<p>meh,</p>
<p>the way i see it - IF poor minorities can't figure out how to apply ED to schools (which i still don't buy...if you're applying to the elite schools, you find out about the application process. we're not talking jersey city state college people), getting ridiculous financial aid (i.e. grants) more then makes up for it.</p>
<p>The fact that these "poor minorities" have the opportunity to go to Harvard or Yale or wherever for free (on grants, not loans), imo, more then makes up for the fact that they maybe didn't know about ED.</p>
<p>jags - </p>
<p>there are PLENTY of very socioeconomically-challenged white kids also getting free rides to these schools.</p>
<p>i know, but the emphasis (from what i read on the first page, i didn't read all 4 pages) was on minorities.</p>
<p>regardless, poor kids, white, black, hispanic, martian, whatever, don't get the shaft because some of them don't know about ed.</p>
<p>if i could trade applying ED for $150,000+ i would.</p>
<p>Again, applying ED does not require only knowing about it. It also requires that the school can get the transcript and profile together and submitted on time, and that teachers get their recommendations in. At many schools in lower income areas the advising offices are too overwhelmed to get things in on an ED time table. Therefore, no matter how well informed the student may be, she/he cannot apply early.</p>
<p>I was trying to decide which of drummerdudes statements was the least accurate- ignoring the personal attacks, since they do nothing to advance the discussion.</p>
<p>My nomination for most wildly uninformed is
[quote]
the VRA doesn't actually have ANYTHING to do with voting rights
[/quote]
I would love to hear some facts and review of the history of the decades long struggle for voting rights to support this claim. Feel free to shout and insult me to your heart's content, but somewhere in there please include some facts. </p>
<p>In the aftemath of his comment, the talk concerned the comment at that affair, the numerous previous times he had made the same comments in other venues, and his record of opposition to the CRA, VRA, and other issues of importance to African-Americans. If you review the history, you will discover this is true.</p>
<p>Insults are always entertaining on these forums, but facts are more likely to persuade others.</p>
<p>Drummerdude. Here are some examples of facts.</p>
<p>Tell me again how all the discussion revolved around one comment. </p>
<p>Major news sources coverage of Lott's comments:</p>
<p>cnn on Lott's history of racism</p>
<p>time magazine: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html</a>
Trent Lott's Segregationist College Days</p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37288-2002Dec10?language=printer%5B/url%5D">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37288-2002Dec10?language=printer</a>
washington post
Lott Remarks on Thurmond Echoed 1980 Words</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/10/politics/main532540.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/10/politics/main532540.shtml</a>
CBS</p>
<p>GOP Chief Burned By 'Choice Of Words' Trent Lott Said Strom Thurmond Should Have Been President</p>
<p>"Lott has angered black groups in the past with his one-time support for the Council of Conservative Citizens, which Lott once appeared to praise as standing for "the right principles" but has since disavowed. </p>
<p>The group grew out of smaller segregationist organizations and supports an extremely conservative position on racial matters, including arguing that Martin Luther King does not deserve a national holiday. "</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock121802.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock121802.asp</a>
from the National Review</p>
<p>Disqualified!
Trent Lott’s mistake was much more than one gaffe. </p>
<p>"Were that the first time Lott said this, he could be excused for having a bad hair day or perhaps too much Southern Comfort in his eggnog.
But NBC Nightly News aired footage Tuesday of Thurmond signing a document at an October 2000 Capitol Hill ceremony. "Now this is a famous signature right here," Lott mumbled near an open microphone. He added that Thurmond "should have been president in 1947, I think it was."
And yet again, in November 1980, then-Rep. Lott declared while campaigning with Thurmond: "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."
But Lott's "years of misbehavior" in word and deed began even earlier.
While at Ole Miss, Lott reportedly led an early-1960s bid to bar blacks from his fraternity, Sigma Nu. "Trent was one of the strongest leaders in resisting the integration of the national fraternity in any of the chapters," even outside the south, Sigma Nu alumnus and former CNN President Tom Johnson told Time's Karen Tumulty. To avoid a convention walkout by segregationists who favored a nationwide no-blacks policy, the fraternity voted to stay all white. "</p>
<p>Look, I am not an expert on Trent Lott's personal history. Maybe he is some sort of bitter racist bigot. But the fact of the matter is that the act of his being removed from leadership was brought about do to the one comment, as I have previously stated. CNN, CBS, the Wash Post, and yes, even NR can deride Trent Lott and point out the negatives of his history, but it is not them that made the decision to remove him. It was his fellow Senate Republicans, and they did so in response to the fury over his single comment.</p>
<p>Whoever is talking about the VRA: maybe you should learn to read. If not the Voting Rights Act itself, at least the Constitution (specifically the 15th amendment):<br>
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."</p>
<p>There is nothing the VRA (or lack of a VRA) can do to subtract from people's right to vote. The name Voting Rights Act and the conversation that surrounds it ("anyone who votes against it is a racist", "letting it expire would prevent blacks from voting") are not true and simply distract from the real reasons conservatives object to it's passage: that it's wording could be construed to prevent laws requiring I.D. to vote or laws preventing convicted felons from voting, and first and foremost that it encourages racial gerrymandering. Some interpretations of the law relating to racial gerrymandering have even been stricken down by the Supreme Court. Section 5, dealing with preclearance of election decisions in many Southern states and other jurisdiction, may have worked well at first, but by today it is simply antiquated prejudice against Southerners to legislate federal intervention into their elections. There is simply no need for it, and it only breeds more resentment and animosity.</p>
<p>Since Trent Lott no longer seems to be your area of expertise - although one would have never known that based on your earlier claims of what he did or did not say, or was or was not reported at the time- perhaps you can now explain how the 15th amendment somehow failed to assure voting rights for blacks and others for over 100 years. Have the changes since the VRA been just a coincidence?</p>
<p>Again, feel free to start off with insults, although as you can see they do not really advance your case. But at some point, even one fact would be entertaining.</p>
<p>Picking up on some earlier threads -- in many geographic areas, it may be more of an economic class and exposure/education-level-of-the-parents issue than it is an issue of race or ethnic group. Making having enough competent, well-trained guidance counselors a top priority in every school would really help bridge the gap. I realize that that is too idealistic an approach to a complicated problem but I do hope that, rather than tinkering with their early admissions procedures, elite educational institutions will work to get more involved in improving the process, the information, and the access at the secondary school level. I see some encouraging things going on in this regard, but there is still so much room for bridging the gap between the realities at elite colleges and what is probably the majority of American secondary schools.</p>
<p>I agree that is one half of the fundamental problem. However, the resources of the high schools are beyond anything the colleges can do. High schools in poor areas rarely send students to elite colleges, and they are struggling to provide basic services to the vast majority of the kids. So strategic niceties for the handful a year, if that, who would even consider an elite get low priority.</p>
<p>The other half of the problem remains that the colleges do accept so many people early, and many of them with weaker qualifications, so that applying regular is a big disadvantage. This is under the college's control. If they capped their admits at, say, no more than 1/3 of the class, and really did limit admits to those who would definitely get in RD, then the advantage of applying early would go away. Then the differences in the demographics of the early and RD pools could persist, but they would not interfere with recruiting a diverse class.</p>
<p>The 15th Amendment didn't fail. The government failed to uphold the 15th Amendment. Typical of your kind: using the failure of government to call for more government. And how about the fact that (as you are clearly unable to recognize the facts I've put forth as such) that you are hopeless. Your last post seems to insinuate that without the VRA we woudl be going back to Jim Crow laws, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and maybe even a poll tax or two. If you believe that, then you display an illogical disconnect with contemporary American society that neither I nor anyone else short of a psychiatrist can correct.</p>
<p>"feel free to start off with insults"
Here's another fact: Actually, my insult was in the 2nd paragraph, comfortably in the middle and not at all "starting off" my post. Of course this is all irrelevant to the argument, but DO tell me, do you have trouble with left and right too?</p>