<p>The race argument and the financial aid argument have something in common here. People who benefit from the current systems tend to agree with them and think they are wonderful, whether it is a URM bump or money awarded. Think about it. People who benefit from a system rationalize it. People who either do not benefit (or actually have it harder because of the first group) tend to disagree with it. It is human nature.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>A metaphor is just a comparison between two unlike things without using "like" or "as." You compared the wording used by Mr. Connerly to a noose around your neck, which I praised for its poetic quality but disliked for its implicit suggestion of bad will on my part. But, if you're saying that I was wrong to interpret your metaphor as suggesting that I have bad will, then I gladly accept the rebuke.</p>
<p>I used the "better definition" you gave of affirmative action and used that as the neutral term for showing that Mr. Connerly's initiatives, strangely enough, actually use affirmative action. Yet, you chose to take my words out of context by ignoring my subsequent elucidation of why Connerly's initiatives count as affirmative action under your "better [neutral] definition."</p>
<p>You say that the rest of my response didn't matter to you. I find that grossly unfair coming from the person who beseeches me to consider context before quoting from Dr. King, despite my repeated mentions that I disagree with him on how to reach the finish line.</p>
<p>I'm happy that you demand high standards from me, but I would feel a lot better if you applied them to yourself, as well.</p>
<p>I indeed "claimed that Connerly is not trying to end Affirmative Action, but to 'use' it." Using your "neutral term," I then proceeded to defend my claim, which you ignored. Had I not defended my claim, your laugh would be somewhat appropriate. But given that I did defend it, your laugh is completely inappropriate, not to mention rude. If you don't want to admit that you made a mistake by failing to consider context, that's your right.</p>
<p>I contest your claim that "One may just as easily declare the system 'Sexual orientation based'." I do not recall filling in a box last fall that asked whether I was straight, gay, or bisexual. By contrast, I remember filling in the box that asked me what my racial and ethnic self-identification was.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A metaphor is just a comparison between two unlike things without using "like" or "as." You compared the wording used by Mr. Connerly to a noose around your neck, which I praised for its poetic quality but disliked for its implicit suggestion of bad will on my part.
[/quote]
Of course you did much more than this, responding falsely as if I actually thought you wished to kill me. Hey, you know, it simply betrays a lack of integrity, and a lack of an argument. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I used the "better definition" you gave of affirmative action and used that as the neutral term for showing that Mr. Connerly's initiatives, strangely enough, actually use affirmative action. Yet, you chose to take my words out of context by ignoring my subsequent elucidation of why Connerly's initiatives count as affirmative action under your "better [neutral] definition."
[/quote]
Of course the definition is better simply because it contained no bias, unlike your submitted definition. Definitive Affirmative Action is found in federal law, as everyone knows. When you claimed Connerly is not interested in ending Affirmative Action, when he has made a career out of attempting to end it, you gave me every reason to ignore the rest of your comment. So I did. Indeed, I literally haven’t a clue what came next because I didn’t read it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm happy that you demand high standards from me, but I would feel a lot better if you applied them to yourself, as well.
[/quote]
When you are able to recognize them, they will appear, because they are already before you. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I indeed "claimed that Connerly is not trying to end Affirmative Action…
[/quote]
and there went the very last thread of your credibility as far as I am concerned.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I contest your claim that "One may just as easily declare the system 'Sexual orientation based'." I do not recall filling in a box last fall that asked whether I was straight, gay, or bisexual. By contrast, I remember filling in the box that asked me what my racial and ethnic self-identification was.
[/quote]
Well of course so many down there in the Pit would get up in arms about sexual orientation. I do not think administrators are quite prepared for the firestorm. But that it is not on the application and race is certainly doesn’t make the entire process “race-based”. Indeed, you didn’t have to share race if you did not wish to. Gays are able, and often do, share their sexual orientation; and admissions committees do take these identities into account. That does not make the entire system “sexual-orientation-based” anymore than a box on a page makes the process “gender-based”, or anymore than an optional box makes it “race-based”, or anymore than disclosing financial information makes it “class-based”. The reality is, avoiding all spin, it is a system that gathers a variety of information enabling a committee to make the most informed decision about an applicant that can be reasonably expected. In America, it is entirely reasonable for an applicant's race to be known.</p>
<p>Actually, lkf, that linkage is not universally true. (Whether it trends so, may be so, but that does not invalidate an AA postion, by itself.) </p>
<p>(1) Neither one of my d's would ever benefit from AA. One of them is practically ghostly white, btw. LOL, a couple of steps shy of albino.</p>
<p>(2) I've been on record many times on CC over the years in lamenting the middle class squeeze in college financial aid. (Dearth of gap aid.) My position is not universally supported on cc. (Some posters think no breaks should be given to the middle class; I don't understand this, but I've read it on CC.) I think I may have proposed some ways to address this, but since I am more interested in the dynamics of admission per se (& do spend some time helping students), I'm sure that I have not adequately addressed this myself. So no, I do not think that 'the current system' is sufficient or does not need overhaul, even though those changes would not benefit me/my daughters.</p>
<p>I just think it is completely understandable that people don't usually complain or question a system that works for them. Nobody ever says "Please don't give me that company car" or "I really feel that I don't contribute enough for my health insurance". Likewise, people (even on CC) who got substantial financial aid tend to think the FA system works pretty well. Nobody gives back money because they feel that they got too much, or because they know somebody else who needs it more. </p>
<p>In the other arena, being URM gives some (?) degree of advantage, so everybody "checks the box" if they can. In fact, I've seen quite a few posts on CC where people try to extrapolate some distant minority status or skin color into an advantage: "I'm an American from India, does that count?" or "My great-grandfather was from South Africa - am I African?" Nobody declines a coveted spot because they know somebody who was more deserving. They just feel lucky and happy, as they should.</p>
<p>Legacy applicants don't hide that fact because it is to their advantage. They like that system. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that everbody is self-serving and working the system, and I'm certainly not saying that you are, epiphany. I am not even saying that either system is right or wrong. It is just my observation that people for whom a system "works" tend to like it, and vise verse.</p>
<p>BTW, has anybody ever declined financial aid money, or failed to indicate that they were URM or a legacy?</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>The SAT's are just the only convient and objective measure of the advangtage granted to URM's that we have. If you have another measure you would prefer to use to frame the argument state it. Please remember as the Bowen and Bok study suggests, the SAT's probably underestimate the advantage since they overpredict minority performance. I do not think that schools generally apply a point system becasue I believe that was declared to be unconstituional in one of the Supreme Court cases (I think Michigan, but not sure)</p>
<p>lkf,</p>
<p>I do know of people who chose not to go to their legacy even though it was more prestigious because they didn't want to taint thier own accomplishments. But I guess that is actualy consistent with your point.</p>
<p>curious,
My hat's off to them for making it on their own, even though it may have been a more uncertain or more difficult path.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>During our discussion in this thread, you have shown me that you are not discussing in good faith. The most recent example is your refusal to see that I wrote, "...if you're saying that I was wrong to interpret your metaphor as suggesting that I have bad will, then I gladly accept the rebuke."</p>
<p>When I disputed the "lack of money" explanation for the low black SAT performance on average, I used data from 1995 and adjusted all the income figures from 1995 dollars to 2007 dollars. I showed that the students from black families earning almost $100,000 in 2007 dollars barely scored higher than students from Asian families earning less than $14,000 and did not score higher than students from white families earning less than $14,000. You called my analysis "invincibly ignorant." You then proceeded to argue in post 45 that despite having 600% more income, these wealthy black families did not have access to educational opportunities that the poverty-level whites and Asians did. You claimed that our culture favors whites and the expense of blacks in literature and film today. Despite giving no examples whatsoever in post 45, you argued that this benefits white students and hurts black students. When it came to Asian students, you claimed that their link to their heritage "insulates" them from this biased society. Later on, you defended your claim by arguing that the additional $86,000 is meaningless because of "inflationary theft." You argued that poor whites can subsist in "Appalachia" through hunting but wealthy blacks in D.C. can't and used that as proof that the additional income doesn't do anything.</p>
<p>I could have easily done what you did, that is, "ignore the rest of your comment" due to its near-comic nature. But, I did not. I read it, and I gave you my disagreement.</p>
<p>After this interesting defense, you then made a case for "Black Jesus" even though you acknowledged that he was a "dark-skinned" Semitic Jew. I asked you whether dark-skin is a sufficient condition for the right to call oneself black, to which you still have not responded.</p>
<p>Still later, you called me a part of an "ilk" that seeks to destroy "diversity" wherever it occurs through racial preference. You were incensed that the "significantly represented" ("over-represented"?) black student body at Berkeley is no more.</p>
<p>Now, in post 463, you show that you again take my words out of context. If you believe that you have a right to take the words of others out of their proper contexts while I do not, then I respect your belief. I will continue to use your words in their proper context, because I do not believe in double standards.</p>
<p>I type corrected that admissions can be "sexual orientation" based after reading your statement that gays can and do share this information. If it is considered for some, then it is one factor of many in the evaluation. Since it is a basis (read: one of many) for admission for some students, admissions for these students was "sexual orientation" based. I think we've really strayed away from the age of "without regard," but I type corrected, Drosselmeier, thank you.</p>
<p>You say I "didn’t have to share race if you did not wish to." That is very true. I did not have to, but that does not mean that it was not a considered factor. It is, therefore it is **a<a href="read:%20one%20of%20many">/b</a> basis for admission. Since it is **a<a href="read:%20one%20of%20many">/b</a> basis, admission that uses this basis along with others can be called race-based. Admission that does not use this basis but uses those same others is race-blind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
During our discussion in this thread, you have shown me that you are not discussing in good faith. The most recent example is your refusal to see that I wrote, "...if you're saying that I was wrong to interpret your metaphor as suggesting that I have bad will, then I gladly accept the rebuke."
[/quote]
I lack faith here because you accept my rebuke for the wrong reason. You know quite well that my metaphor was poetic, and actually admitted as much. Yet you launched into much idle banter that treated my statement literally, as if I actually thought you wished to kill me. It was plainly dishonest, and it was for that reason I rebuked you—not for any misinterpretation suggesting you have bad will.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When I disputed the "lack of money" explanation for the low black SAT performance on average, I used data from 1995 and adjusted all the income figures from 1995 dollars to 2007 dollars. I showed that the students from black families earning almost $100,000 in 2007 dollars barely scored higher than students from Asian families earning less than $14,000 and did not score higher than students from white families earning less than $14,000. You called my analysis "invincibly ignorant." You then proceeded to argue in post 45 that despite having 600% more income, these wealthy black families did not have access to educational opportunities that the poverty-level whites and Asians did. You claimed that our culture favors whites and the expense of blacks in literature and film today. Despite giving no examples whatsoever in post 45, you argued that this benefits white students and hurts black students.
[/quote]
I have given many</a> examples of everything I have said here at</a> one time or other. Even in your</a> particular case here I have given many examples. But of course looking up examples takes time, and unlike you I don’t have a father who has written over 25 peer-reviewed papers while in the “People’s Republic”. I in fact have to budget my time wisely, to be able to waste time here with you, and still fulfill my considerable obligations. I have concluded it is not wise to give examples in every single case of a statement I make, especially since you do not listen. It makes the waste more tolerable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When it came to Asian students, you claimed that their link to their heritage "insulates" them from this biased society. Later on, you defended your claim by arguing that the additional $86,000 is meaningless because of "inflationary theft." You argued that poor whites can subsist in "Appalachia" through hunting but wealthy blacks in D.C. can't and used that as proof that the additional income doesn't do anything.
[/quote]
Of course, that was not only my claim. The $86K is also meaningless because it does not address the real issues affecting black performance. It ought to be self-evident to you that money no more makes a scholar than eating does, though both can potentially permit access to scholarship.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I could have easily done what you did, that is, "ignore the rest of your comment" due to its near-comic nature. But, I did not. I read it, and I gave you my disagreement.
[/quote]
And you should have done this and much more. I should do precisely what I have done.</p>
<p>
[quote]
After this interesting defense, you then made a case for "Black Jesus" even though you acknowledged that he was a "dark-skinned" Semitic Jew. I asked you whether dark-skin is a sufficient condition for the right to call oneself black, to which you still have not responded.
[/quote]
I certainly did respond. I have no interest in making Jesus black. I never claimed in all my posts that he was black. I know he wasn’t white, certainly not the long-haired G</p>
<p>Re: #447:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I dislike how you have no qualms dismissing Asian students at Riverside as over-represented (40% > 12%), but you will not extend that same courtesy to black students at Riverside, who are likewise over-represented (8% > 6.1%).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fab,</p>
<p>Prior to this post, I never wrote a word about Asians at UCR. Once again you are falsely attributing statements to other posters.</p>
<p>Also, your factual information is not accurate. Here is enrollment information for UCR vs. Calif. census figures:</p>
<p>Black 6.5% (UCR) vs. 6.7%(California)
Native Am .3% vs. 1.2%
Latino 23% vs. 35%
White 20% vs. 43%
Asian 39% vs. 12%</p>
<p>Of UCR's current enrollment (all students admitted after passage of Prop 209), the only race "over-represented" based on census figures is Asian. Every other race is "under-represented" using that criteria.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>First, I am not forcing you to "waste time here with [me]." If you are unhappy, then please stop. I have no intention of making you purposefully unhappy. I do intend to question your "interesting" comments, though. If it bothers you, please tell me.</p>
<p>I am again reminded of why I would not be a good lawyer. I simply don't think quickly enough. It turns out that we agree that the "lack of money" argument doesn't hold up. As you note, "...money no more makes a scholar than eating does."</p>
<p>If by writing "you should have done this and much more," you are giving me the right to take your statements out of context and then laugh at them, I thank you, but I decline. I do not feel it is right to do that to you, even though you have done it to me.</p>
<p>I feel that you have actually used two definitions of affirmative action in your decision to not read my argument that Mr. Connerly, strangely enough, seeks to use affirmative action with his initiatives. Under your "better definition" (post 347), Connerly was clearly using affirmative action because he used legislation as the "active effort" to "to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups or women." How did he "improve the...opportunities"? He penned the language such that it is illegal for the state to discriminate against. I request clarification on how a measure that prohibits negative discrimination fails "to improve...opportunities" for these groups. I need no clarification, however, if you had in mind the following definition:</p>
<p>the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives **special rights* of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority*</p>
<p>from the People's Law Dictionary when you decided not to read my argument.</p>
<p>You say that you have never claimed that Jesus was black. But, you have previously mentioned a mysterious entity known as "Black Jesus." What's more, you have claimed in post 118 that the term "White Jesus" is not redudant. You say that Jesus wasn't white because he was a dark-skinned Semite, but you also say that he wasn't black, either. I am quite confused as to why you have made use of the names "White Jesus" and "Black Jesus" if he was neither. Being a Semite born in the modern day Middle East, Jesus was certainly not Asian. He lived many centuries before the creation of the Spanish language, so he was not Hispanic, either. I request clarification.</p>
<p>You wrote in 422 that "the basis for banning race in this instance [my disagreement that removing race results in a 'numbers driven Chinese system'] has not been established." I then wrote the following in post 425:</p>
<p>*
The possibility that a young black applicant is mocked with the n-word does not appeal to me. As you know, I dislike deriding students like Henry Park as “textureless math grinds” who are like “thousands of other Koreans.” These situations would not occur if the race and name of these applicants were not revealed.*</p>
<p>I see that instead of writing 'possibility,' I should have talked about Ms. Bari-Ellen Roberts, who shows that the 'possibility' was a 'reality.' Also, I request that you answer my ending questions in post 425.</p>
<p>I will take your word that "there has never been a 'without regard' period." I ask, is that not a goal worth pursuing?</p>
<p>Indeed, admissions can be, and in practice is, "very many other things based." But, we're focusing on one variable at a time here, Drosselmeier. If admissions uses race as one of the factors, then it is race-based. It does not need to be "wholly dependent" on this one factor for it to be based on this factor. Indeed, if it did, then it would not be one of many; it would be the one.</p>
<p>We thus have different conceptions of what "X-based" means. I define "X-based" to mean X is a factor. However, you define "X-based" to mean X is the factor. I do not use such a definition. I have made it clear that X is one of many. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I did not write clearly enough rather than assume that you purposefully chose to ignore my repeated mention that X is one of many.</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>I apologize for "falsely attributing statements" to you.</p>
<p>You say that my factual information is not accurate. Yet, you provide no sources for me to check your data.</p>
<p>According to the 2005 U.S. Census Bureau, California was 6.1% black.</p>
<p>According to the College Board, a recent freshman class at Riverside was 8% black.</p>
<p>Thus, for this recent freshman class, black students were "over-represented."</p>
<p>I request where you found your data from.</p>
<p>I also ask the following question:</p>
<p>Given that in 2005, black residents made up 6.1% of the California population, were black freshmen "over-represented" in their incoming class if they made up 8%, as reported by the College Board?</p>
<p>Fab,</p>
<p>Here is the census data: <a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html%5B/url%5D">http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html</a></p>
<p>Here is the UCR data: <a href="http://www.diversity.ucr.edu/about/demographics.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.diversity.ucr.edu/about/demographics.php</a></p>
<p>Thanks, Bay.</p>
<p>I see that I have made a mistake. I thought I was using the 2005 U.S. Census as my source, but it turns out I was using 2005 ACS Estimates.</p>
<p>I also see that our second figures represent different things. 6.5% comes from all 16,826 students enrolled at Riverside. 8% comes from the 3,594 freshmen in a recent class.</p>
<p>I modify my question accordingly:</p>
<p>Given that in 2005, black residents made up 6.7% of the California population, were black freshmen "over-represented" in their incoming class if they made up 8%, as reported by the College Board?</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>It makes sense that the College Board percentages are higher. Students drop out, thus reducing the percentage. My question remains, however, because it focuses on the freshman class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, I am not forcing you to "waste time here with [me]." If you are unhappy, then please stop. I have no intention of making you purposefully unhappy. I do intend to question your "interesting" comments, though. If it bothers you, please tell me.
[/quote]
You do not question. Indeed, the lion’s share of your effort is spent telling everyone how it should be. You misrepresent others, and are quite dishonest about it. The waste is in having to represent myself repeatedly. But hey, it’s fine. I am willing to waste the time. There is usefulness here-- for you, as we are about to see below.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am again reminded of why I would not be a good lawyer. I simply don't think quickly enough. It turns out that we agree that the "lack of money" argument doesn't hold up. As you note, "...money no more makes a scholar than eating does."
[/quote]
Well duh, son. It just goes to show how little you listen to anyone, other than to yourself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If by writing "you should have done this and much more," you are giving me the right to take your statements out of context and then laugh at them…
[/quote]
Here again, you misrepresent me. You said the following:</p>
<p>I could have easily done what you did, that is, "ignore the rest of your comment" due to its near-comic nature. But, I did not. I</a> read it, and I gave you my disagreement.</p>
<p>To which I responded “"you should have done this and much more,". And it is quite true. You certainly should have ‘read it, and gave me your disagreement’, that, and much more. I deserve this much from you because I have been aboveboard and sincere at every turn here. Of course, you have not-- hence your treatment here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I feel that you have actually used two definitions of affirmative action…. [Connerly] penned the language such that it is illegal for the state to discriminate against. I request clarification on how a measure that prohibits negative discrimination fails "to improve...opportunities" for these groups.
[/quote]
Two things: 1. I do not trust Connerly’s treatment of the terms because, as with you, he and many other AA opponents have a great tendency to abuse the statements of others, adding elasticity to terms that are very commonly and rigidly held. It is dishonorable, and unworthy of trust. 2. Even with this apparently innocuous definition here, it is most obvious that no actual improvement exists. The language merely describes what cannot be done. There is no actual instruction for improvement at all. You call this sort of passivity “action” when there is not even one affirmative action here anywhere. You are twisting language, yet again.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You say that you have never claimed that Jesus was black. But, you have previously mentioned a mysterious entity known as "Black Jesus."
[/quote]
Please, son. You really ought to at least consider getting a conscience here. I mentioned black Jesus to show that such a thing, unlike White Jesus, does not exist in our society, though Jesus was likely dark-skinned, had short hair, thick features, and looked something between a modern Israeli and an African. We ought not confuse the population now in Israel with the likely appearance of ancient Jesus.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's more, you have claimed in post 118 that the term "White Jesus" is not redudant. You say that Jesus wasn't white because he was a dark-skinned Semite, but you also say that he wasn't black, either. I am quite confused as to why you have made use of the names "White Jesus" and "Black Jesus" if he was neither.
[/quote]
See above. He was probably a dark, curly short haired, olive skinned “man of color”, as one scholar puts it. And that is how I see Him. It is the likely truth – far more so than the obvious falsehood commonly fed to whites and blacks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I will take your word that "there has never been a 'without regard' period." I ask, is that not a goal worth pursuing?
[/quote]
Well of course, but not necessarily by forcing an end to laws that are designed to help people. It is certainly a goal to pursue, but not with a selfish rush to pursue it in our own way, heedless of the effects it would have on millions of others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed, admissions can be, and in practice is, "very many other things based." But, we're focusing on one variable at a time here, Drosselmeier. If admissions uses race as one of the factors, then it is race-based. It does not need to be "wholly dependent" on this one factor for it to be based on this factor. Indeed, if it did, then it would not be one of many; it would be the one.
[/quote]
Hehe. You focus on “one variable” at a time and it just happens to be race because that is the “one variable” that gets your panties in a bunch. The truth is, race is just one of many variables in the process, being part of an attempt to gather every reasonable variable about the candidate to enable a committee to make an informed decision about that candidate. That is why the process is nothing based, but instead is holistic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We thus have different conceptions of what "X-based" means. I define "X-based" to mean X is a factor.
[/quote]
Which is nonsensical. It is like saying humans are “dung based” because defecation is a factor of being human. LOL. Common sense tells us that for something to be “[fill in the blank]-based”, that thing must be fundamentally composed of [fill in the blank]. That is what the very word “based” means. It means founded on, essentially comprised of, coming from.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, you define "X-based" to mean X is the factor. I do not use such a definition. I have made it clear that X is one of many. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I did not write clearly enough rather than assume that you purposefully chose to ignore my repeated mention that X is one of many.
[/quote]
I don’t intentionally ignore things, son - at least not things that matter. In this case I’ve simply rejected your twisted abomination of a definition out of hand.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>You said it – you’re “**willing<a href="keyword">/b</a> to waste the time.” I remind you again that I am not forcing you to do anything. It is your choice.</p>
<p>You say that I am not questioning your statements. As you showed in your post 476, I clearly questioned your rationale for using “Black Jesus” when you state that he was neither black nor white but a “dark skinned Semite.”</p>
<p>Yes, we do agree that the “lack of money” argument is false. Perhaps I should not have explicitly written this, for if I had not, then you would not have written “duh, son.”</p>
<p>You say that you deserve treatment from me that I do not deserve from you because you have been “aboveboard and sincere at every turn here.” Yet, you chose to not read my argument that Mr. Connerly seeks use “affirmative action” as you defined it in post 347. Indeed, you simply took my sentence out of context, ignored its subsequent elaboration, and laughed at it. I do not view that as either “aboveboard” or “sincere.” I view it as an older man bullying a younger man and then justifying the bullying.</p>
<p>You seem to have not contested that by refusing to read my elaboration, you were using the definition I gave from The People’s Law Dictionary of affirmative action instead of your “better definition,” which I explicitly referred to in my argument. You also say that you do not trust Mr. Connerly’s treatment of “the terms.” Which terms do you refer to? Connerly does not once mention “affirmative action” in his ballot language. (He does use the word “discriminate,” though.) I request clarification on why you do not trust “these terms.”</p>
<p>You say that “there is not even one affirmative action” in any of the ballot proposals from Mr. Connerly. Again, I quote your “better definition” as follows:</p>
<p>An active effort (as through legislation) to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups or women.</p>
<p>Connerly is using “legislation” at the state level “to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups or women” by amending constitutions to ensure that no resident is discriminated against on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, or national orientation. You say that “it cannot be done.” Yet, the voters of Washington passed it two years after the voters in California did. The voters of Michigan passed it a DECADE after the voters in California did, which is ample time to see whether it can or “cannot be done.” A majority felt that it can be done, and thus they passed it.</p>
<p>I don’t contest that Jesus was a dark-skinned Semite. I asked you in post 469 whether having dark-skin is a sufficient condition for the right to call oneself black. You claim in post 470 that you “certainly did respond. I have no interest in making Jesus black. I never claimed in all my posts that he was black.” You did not answer my question. Is having dark-skin a sufficient condition for the right to call oneself black? I already knew that dark-skin was a sufficient condition for the right to call oneself “a man of color.” I’m asking you about the right to call oneself black. Please answer the question.</p>
<p>I also request the answers to my questions in post 425 regarding the possibility of correctly identifying a student as Asian if neither his race nor his name is given. Thank you.</p>
<p>I am glad that you find the ideal of “without regard” worth pursuing. However, I do not see how Mr. Connerly’s initiatives “forc[e] an end to laws that are designed to help people.” As I told you many pages ago, his initiatives use the very affirmative action that is defined by your “better definition.” See the second paragraph above from this one for your convenience.</p>
<p>First, I don’t wear panties. I prefer boxer briefs for a myriad of reasons which if you’re interested, I will be glad to discuss with you via the private message system. Second and more important, race is the variable of focus here because it is most relevant to this thread. I have never disputed that “race is just one of the many variables in the process.” Indeed, I affirmed this most recently in post 472. I believe you would find yourself repeating your words significantly less if you noticed that I am already saying many of the things you are saying.</p>
<p>You dismiss my definition as “nonsensical.” Indulge me for a few minutes and *use it * to answer the following question: Under my definition of X-based, is it true that admissions is race-based if race is one factor of many?</p>
<p>I will say that under your definition of X-based, I don’t believe any universities today use race-based admissions. It used to be the case four years ago, but that’s the past. Today, no university uses race as a “wholly dependent” factor.</p>
<p>If a person who calls me a member of an “ilk” that seeks to destroy diversity, calls some of my definitions “twisted abomination[s],” and ignores elaborations is considered “aboveboard” and “sincere,” what does it take to be considered “bogus” and “insincere”?</p>
<p>Just squeezing a reply in edgewise, here.;) (to lkf)</p>
<p>Well your theory about tendencies/trends may be correct & falls within common sense as to how self-advantage affects bias. However, I don't think your example of financial aid award rejection is quite the same. Rejecting an award based on protest over general fin. aid policies (at that institution or in general) would neither benefit the student nor move the colleges toward reform. It's unreasonable to ask some people to self-sacrifice for a principle, when that individual sacrifice has virtually no chance of changing the policy.
(If that's what you were hinting by your question, "Has anybody ever...")</p>
<p>I have known of a several cases personally where a student has Declined To State a URM status. Just to be clear about this, though: it was never because that student disagreed with the concept of Affirmative Action. (They shared their positions with me.) It was because of the <em>rhetoric</em> and <em>misunderstandings</em> about AA that these students were concerned would stigmatize an acceptance. And none of these cases were in the last 5 yrs. Some of that rhetoric was generated by anti-AA people, but some was not. Some was generated by pro-AA people with their own agendas & own failure to understand some of the concepts that have been discussed on this thread.</p>
<p>Epiphany, </p>
<p>Unfortunately declining to state their race on an application does not prevent others from assuming that the student was given a racial preference. That is one of the problems with racial preferences, it stigmatizes even if you don't take advantage of it. At least a legacy admission can be denied.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You said it – you’re “willing (keyword) to waste the time.” I remind you again that I am not forcing you to do anything. It is your choice.
[/quote]
No need to remind me. I do it generously.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You say that I am not questioning your statements. As you showed in your post 476, I clearly questioned your rationale for using “Black Jesus” when you state that he was neither black nor white but a “dark skinned Semite.”
[/quote]
You did not question my statement even here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You say that you deserve treatment from me that I do not deserve from you because you have been “aboveboard and sincere at every turn here.” Yet, you chose to not read my argument…
[/quote]
There was no argument to read.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You seem to have not contested that by refusing to read my elaboration, you were using the definition I gave from The People’s Law Dictionary of affirmative action instead of your “better definition,”…
[/quote]
There is nothing to contest here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You say that “there is not even one affirmative action” in any of the ballot proposals from Mr. Connerly….Connerly is using “legislation” at the state level “to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups or women” by amending constitutions to ensure that no resident is discriminated against on the basis of race
[/quote]
That is not Affirmative (in that is does not assert anything, but rather bans something), and it is not Action (in that it does not do a single thing, but is passive). There is nothing here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don’t contest that Jesus was a dark-skinned Semite. I asked you in post 469 whether having dark-skin is a sufficient condition for the right to call oneself black. You claim in post 470 that you “certainly did respond. I have no interest in making Jesus black. I never claimed in all my posts that he was black.” You did not answer my question. Is having dark-skin a sufficient condition for the right to call oneself black?
[/quote]
It does not matter –if someone wishes to call themselves black or white it is their choice. But that does not apply where Jesus is concerned because we do not know how He self-identified. I suspect, race being what it was in that day, that it was nothing like the near binary definition for race we have today. And that is why it is inappropriate to shoehorn the man into our arbitrary racial classifications. It is certain that based on all we know, Jesus looked nothing like the “Gunther Jesus” we see currently, and that therefore there is no basis for calling Him white. That is a very full answer to your question, as I have given previously.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also request the answers to my questions in post 425 regarding the possibility of correctly identifying a student as Asian if neither his race nor his name is given. Thank you.
[/quote]
Don’t remember the question, and I will not look up the post. It is very likely I simply stop reading mid-statement and overlooked it – because it just does not matter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am glad that you find the ideal of “without regard” worth pursuing. However, I do not see how Mr. Connerly’s initiatives “forc[e] an end to laws that are designed to help people.”
[/quote]
There are a great many things you do not see.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, I don’t wear panties. I prefer boxer briefs for a myriad of reasons which if you’re interested (snip)…
[/quote]
I assure you, I am not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You dismiss my definition as “nonsensical.”
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I said it is, there is a very good chance that it really is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I will say that under your definition of X-based, I don’t believe any universities today use race-based admissions. It used to be the case four years ago, but that’s the past. Today, no university uses race as a “wholly dependent” factor.
[/quote]
That’s what I have been trying to tell you by shoving so many ASCII characters down your throat.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If a person who calls me a member of an “ilk” that seeks to destroy diversity, calls some of my definitions “twisted abomination[s],” and ignores elaborations is considered “aboveboard” and “sincere,” what does it take to be considered “bogus” and “insincere”?
[/quote]
It takes employing such dishonesty that you cause someone to lose enough confidence in you that they refuse to take your posts seriously.</p>