<p>
[quote]
I'm honestly a little tired, because it seems like people here read what I post, but do not digest it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can one digest what you have written and still disagree with you? or is agreement the only evidence of digestion?</p>
<p>lol 50 bucks for me guys.</p>
<p>backtracked to the gospel, backtracked to race doesn't shape viewpoint, backtracked to saying that the south isn't racially divided or more racist then the north (honestly, does anyone by that?)</p>
<p>haha, fabrizio you're fun(ny)</p>
<p>Neither, digestion of facts becomes evident when people aren't restating points that have already been refuted. If people are just trying to push the same points with no new evidence supporting them, then progress is not being made. I don't mind dissent, but I hate stagnation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quite frankly, I don't care why a politican does something as much as I care what the politician is doing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Derrick,
With this statement I think you're sacrificing principle on the altar of pragmatism. The why always matters.</p>
<p>Of course the why matters, but in the world of politics where the why is always a bit hazy, it is sometimes easier to just take an action or statement at face value. The operative phrase here is "as much as".</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>Is it so difficult for you to google "straw man"?</p>
<p>You have yet again twisted my words to suit your biases. I have consistently acknowledged that the South still has racial tensions. Find one instance where I praised the South as being devoid of racial strife.</p>
<p>I think the preachers of "diversity" need to demonstrate a working tolerance of opposing viewpoints (i.e. refrain from the threat of the "hammer of truth") before they can continue their evangelism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Regardless of WHY politicans adopt policies of diversity, it's something that needs to be accomplished.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. Not everyone here shares your view of the world. You think "diversity" should be promoted, but others, such as myself, feel it comes naturally.</p>
<p>Every individual is unique. Every individual has a different view of life, the universe, and everything. Everyone has different desires, goals, and interests. There is no need to promote "diversity" when real diversity will always happen.</p>
<p>Perhaps you mean that there should be more Blacks at universities. If you admit that this is your definition of diversity, then I'll back off and applaud you for your honesty.</p>
<p>So far, I haven't found a single person honest enough to admit that his conception of "diversity" is nothing more than wanting more Blacks in postsecondary education.</p>
<p>In addition, I have yet to read a single explanation for why the number of Black honor graduates at UCSD significantly increased following the enactment of race-blind admissions.</p>
<p>Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack!!!!</p>
<p>50 more bucks to me</p>
<p>lets see back track to straw men, which he already defined and don't apply to anything i say, backtracked his backtrack that their is less racial tension in the south (he'll just refute his own arguments if you let him), backtracked to being a victim saying that we aren't being tolerant of him. I'm pretty sure we don't have to be tolerant of RACISTS, something that you <em>or anybody</em> CHOOSE to be.</p>
<p>UCSD honor graduates significantly increased because the ones who could thrive at UCB and UCLA didn't get in, so they settled for UCSD and graduated with honors at an easier school.</p>
<p>ready....set....backtrack!</p>
<p>I dont have any REAL political views on this (I'm assuming you are talking about AA), well I dont have many political views in general but here's my 2 cents:</p>
<p>1) At all top colleges, most of which practice AA, there has to be a top 50% and a lower 50%</p>
<p>2) When prestigious firms (i.e. Goldman Sachs) hire individuals, they will not, regardless of how your prestigious univerisity is, hire a white/asian kid outside the top 50-70%. However, any Black/Hispanic graduating with any decency from these top collges WILL get a spot extremely quickly</p>
<p>3) This is where AA comes in, if you fill in the class by admittedly lower qualified blacks and Hispanics (20-25% of the class), virtually all of them get jobs and the vast majority of Asians and Whites will get jobs as well.</p>
<p>4) However, if AA were to be abolished, these universities would be for a majority White/Asian and now a good 30% of the class will not be hired by these prestigious firms/get into grad school. In addition, the college body will be primarily filled with 3.8+, 2200+ SAT scorers who have never been in the bottom 90% of ANYTHING, much less bottom 30%. That is bound to create stress and could even increase sad things that could range from drug usage to suicide. However, since a good portion of URMS matriculating know they are not at the top everything (a good majority have 600s in more than one section of the SAT and some with sub 10% rank) they "know how to deal" better with dissapointment and failure than the aforemention kids.</p>
<p>5) Now, you have to wonder, where are those that are not even admitted due to AA are matriculate to. Most matriculate to other Ivies/ top schools if they diversify which schools they apply to. If not, they end up at their top state publics and will still get these money making jobs and or get into a top grad school</p>
<p>6) These assumptions were based on Blacks and Hispanics get prefential treatment in the admissions process, and are thus weaker students at the college. Furthermore, most of them end up being in the bottom 50-70% of the class.</p>
<p>7) In conclusion, AA is quite beneficial on most levels. It helps the college maintain the air of diversity, have many kids go on to top graduate career paths/ get good jobs, and helps it have a content "lower 30-50%" ranking class. It helps the AA admits easily because of their admission and pretty much guaranteed admission into top graduate career paths. It helps the whites and asian admits because a majority of them will also be able to pursue theses things listed above. It also could save the "borderline applicants" from matriculating to these top collges and wasting money not being able to obtain a lucrative post-undergrad experience. In short, AA hurts your chances of being admitted to undergraduate school if you're Asian however it helps your chances in general in getting secure career placement.</p>
<p>8) Most importantly, like it or not, it's not gonna change at any private schools. One is wasting his/her time complaning about it; there are way more racist institutions in the U.S. (such as Golf/Country clubs that are only open to white male protestants) yet no one has ever sued those groups.</p>
<p>9) Thanks for listening to my long post.</p>
<p>"-I do believe that there IS a perspective that you can only get from african americans, koreans, chinese, hispanics. yes."</p>
<p>Tyler09, please give an example. I can't imagine one single perspective that you can only have if you are born with a certain amount of melanin in your skin. Your argument could have some merit to it, but at this point I can't imagine what it is, so please give an example. I'm really curious.</p>
<p>If you aren't a minority, then you can't really understand. You grow up different, you're raised different, you see the world differently. I guess it's kind of hard to grasp, but if you ask any minority they'll tell you its real.</p>
<p>It is real....100%. I mean it isn't as blown up as some people as Al Sharpton would like to contend....but the difference is there, even if you are socio- economically equal with a white kid (also Asians in suburbs)....not saying though whether or not this justifies AA....</p>
<p>"Perhaps you mean that there should be more Blacks at universities. If you admit that this is your definition of diversity, then I'll back off and applaud you for your honesty."</p>
<p>Whoah, let's pause here for a second. First of all, the AA argument is not for this thread- although they are related arguments, but they are not the same. I do, in fact want more blacks in universities, as expressed in the "Affirmative Action thread", but let's keep AA where it belongs-in it's properly designated thread. </p>
<p>"No. Not everyone here shares your view of the world. You think "diversity" should be promoted, but others, such as myself, feel it comes naturally."</p>
<p>Then this is not an area where I could persuade you otherwise. I do not presume that anyone agrees with me. I don't argue to persuade others, but rather to defend what I think.</p>
<p>"I can't imagine one single perspective that you can only have if you are born with a certain amount of melanin in your skin. Your argument could have some merit to it, but at this point I can't imagine what it is, so please give an example. I'm really curious."</p>
<p>Consider the black who is ridiculed simply because they are black. Consider the black who is treated to awkward stares every time the topic of MLK or slavery comes up. Consider the black who goes to school where the population is 75% black but only represent about 18.75% of an AP class of 16. Consider the black who is questioned by other blacks as to why he's taking an honors class instead of regents. </p>
<p>Do not even for a second feign that you are so devoid of imagination that you could not imagine an instance in which someone of color brings a completely unique perspective. When was the last time you saw a white person called the "N word" because of the color of their skin? You are not an idiot, you can easily think of an instance where culture leads to different experiences. You simply refuse to concede on a simple point.</p>
<p>If diversity came "naturally" in a racist society, you wouldn't need laws to make sure people didn't discriminate</p>
<p>We are a country that has done racial cleansing on numerous levels throughout our history and deny it still to a large degree</p>
<p>We have people on these very threads who in pretty thinly veiled words espouse racists views, we have people that would be okay with things they were back before the civil rights laws, we have people that constantly feel the need to share the stats of someone of color who they think didn't "disserve" to be admitted to a school because their scores were at the top 50percent or whatever, and so they think that we should just let things evolve naturally</p>
<p>well, that just didn't happen in this country for decades, and as a woman, I appreciate that people were wise enough to realize that things often don't just evolve becuase many people are jerks and don't do the right thing all by themselves and need the nudge of law, policy, etc</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>You have frequently misrepresented my views to suit your biases and then claimed to be ignorant of such poor reasoning. You are aware that this does not help your argument?</p>
<p>Despite knowing that you will once again ignore my candor, I will reiterate my consistent opinion. The South is not perfect when it comes to race relations. Your reading skills are still developing, so you choose to read that sentence without the important word "not." The rest of us know that "not" is a very important marker in sentence completion critical reading questions. It signals negation.</p>
<p>In addition, I am not a victim and have never claimed to be one.</p>
<p>The seminary should really make sure its preachers are more coherent before they send them out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCSD honor graduates significantly increased because the ones who could thrive at UCB and UCLA didn't get in, so they settled for UCSD and graduated with honors at an easier school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not buying your explanation. You say that the UCSD honor graduates could have thrived at either Berkeley or LA, but you mention that they weren't offered admissions to those campuses. It's a stretch to assume that all of them could have "thrived" at Berkeley or LA.</p>
<p>Your use of the phrase "settled for" indicates your bias that these students were entitled to attend Berkeley or LA. Sorry, that's not how it works, especially not in California. You have to earn your spot.</p>
<p>Derrick,</p>
<p>I did not mention affirmative action in the paragraph you cited. I attempted to figure out what your definition of diversity is, which you have not defined in either this thread or the "official" affirmative action thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If diversity came "naturally" in a racist society, you wouldn't need laws to make sure people didn't discriminate
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Could you please explain why Black admissions at UCR increased by 240% following Proposition 209? I don't know about you, but that speaks volumes about how diversity comes naturally, even in a society that has been historically racist and still is to a much smaller extent.</p>
<p>You say that you appreciate people being wise enough to realize that things often don't just change, jerks often don't do the right thing, and intervention is occasionally necessary.</p>
<p>I couldn't agree more. That's why as an American, I hold Mr. Oliver Brown and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to name only two, in high respect. That's also why I thank the citizens of California and Michigan who voted for Proposition 209 and Proposition 2, respectively.</p>
<p>"If you aren't a minority, then you can't really understand. You grow up different, you're raised different, you see the world differently."</p>
<p>Ok, well that sounds true but that's not the type of example I was asking for. I mean, on a campus, when you are in a classroom arguing viewpoints/perspectives/opinions, please give an example of a viewpoint/perspective opinion that ONLY a minority could have.</p>