|
 |
June 23, 2003 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION....I don't have a lot of comment on the two affirmative action cases handed down today other than to say that, taken together, they seem about right to me. I'm happy that affirmative action as a concept was ruled constitutional, but I'm also happy to accept the idea that it needs to be moderate in scope — although the ruling seems to insist on a somewhat more stringent scope than I'd like. What's more, as Tapped points out, Sandra Day O'Connor's suggestion that affirmative action shouldn't be viewed as a program that lasts forever is also reasonable. I support moderate affirmative action as a simple matter of equity, but I also believe that our real goal should be to make it unnecessary. The sooner we do this the better, but until then we need to keep it around as a necessary tool in the fight to overcome a centuries-old legacy of racism that continues to haunt us today. Posted by Kevin Drum at June 23, 2003 08:48 PM | TrackBackComments
Under the current circumstances, this was probably the best ruling possible. I'll take it. Posted by: Brian Schefke at June 23, 2003 09:55 PM | PERMALINKI don't believe we can use affirmative action to overcome racism for the simple and obvious reason that affirmative action only serves to perpetuate the feelings behind racism on a steroidal incline and will continue to do so for years to come. How's that for building a new line of equity me thinks. Posted by: Dougalsdomain at June 23, 2003 10:37 PM | PERMALINKI don't think it will be possible to do away with racism until our society admits that it is still frequently racist. That means that racism needs to still be sought out and the people who practice it confronted. We won't get there by wishing/imagining/dreaming that we are already there as so many Republicans (and a number of other whites in particular) want to do. Still, we are much, much closer than we were when I grew up in Texas in the 40's and 50's. We simply can't stop there, and we must not stop embarrasing people by forcing them to recognize their own racism. America has done more towards eliminating racism than any other nation on Earth. It would be a shame to quit with the job only partly done. All in all, I am surprised at how well the decision went. I haven't looked at the vote yet, but I have no doubt that I can predict how Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas voted. Posted by: Rick B at June 23, 2003 11:39 PM | PERMALINKDougal, Affirmative Action was not meant to end racism. It was designed as a rememdy to the effects of racism. With that in mind, I can agree with Kevin and Justice O'Connor, affirmative action should not last forever. Let's see: (1776 to 1865 = 89 years of slavery in the USA)+ (1865 to 1965 = 100 years of Jim Crow & de facto segregation) = 189 years. We're roughly 40 years into remedying the solution. Only 150 years of affirmative action to go. I can live with that. Posted by: walter at June 23, 2003 11:50 PM | PERMALINKI gotta agree with Rick on this. For the most part, America is still in denial about racism. There's a few more steps to go before we can begin to remedy the problem. . . Posted by: epist at June 24, 2003 12:16 AM | PERMALINKI maintain that Tocqueville was right and the problem is not "racism" but "the Negro problem". There is no "racism" problem in America with respect to Jews, Irish, Poles, Southeast Asians, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis and not very much of one with respect to African and West Indian immigrants. What there is, is a problem with the only non-immigrant community of the USA; the descendants of black slaves. Posted by: dsquared at June 24, 2003 12:16 AM | PERMALINKdsquared, Amadou Diallo, the African immigrant who was shot 41 times and killed by NYPD. Abner Louima was a Haitian immigrant who was viciously abused by NYPD. I don't know, but it seems like we also have an "Immigrant Problem" Posted by: walter at June 24, 2003 12:31 AM | PERMALINKI had a relative who worked many years in a public school system administration office. I was curious and asked, how the ethnic/racial classification of a student was determined by the school. The answer? The student's race was whatever the parent claimed when the parent filled out the student's paperwork. So that suggests a simple solution to the affirmative action problem for disaffected 'whites'. They should just select whatever minority designation that they feel like when filling out a college application. After all, who could dispute such an action? It's not like America has some kind of racial purity board giving official race classification licenses. Or will clinging to affirmative action policies inevitably lead to such an authority? Posted by: Brad at June 24, 2003 02:24 AM | PERMALINKThe University of Michigan was a moderate affirmative action program. If race can be used as a factor, but not the only factor, what other system does as well? The Supremes seem to object to the amount of points assigned to blacks. Picky, picky. Renquist stated that the problem with the UM system is that all qualified blacks who enrolled were accepted. I guess I'm stupid but I can't see where the problem is. Posted by: LowLife at June 24, 2003 03:20 AM | PERMALINKSeems to me that if people are wondering what kinds of reparations are appropriate for slavery, affirmative action is a pretty good solution. When you view it in that light it seems fine. Anti-affirmative action types want to believe that we've fixed the world, that racism doesn't exist any more, and that we've got to eliminate all consideration of race to achieve a desired state of goodness. Tell it to a black person in Tulia. The most disturbing comment I've heard lately was a Tulia resident complaining about the release of falsely accused blacks from prison: "You know, some of those people were guilty." Posted by: Ross Judson at June 24, 2003 05:24 AM | PERMALINKWhat would liberals do without (others') racism? As a regular reader of this blog and one who shares many of the sentiments expressed, I am afraid I have to say that your post on affirmative action, Kevin, reminds me of that scene in "Blazing Saddles" wherein the old toothless moutaineer "expresses" his opinion about how to save the town of Red Rock and is characterized as having provided an example of "genuine frontier gibberish." Posted by: waxtoes at June 24, 2003 06:17 AM | PERMALINKRichard, the laws against racial discrimination don't really reduce racism's scope for action. Discrimination is extremely difficult to prove, and the remedies are minor (back pay, I think). In an old job I had, the person who was writing a classified ad said, "Should we put in Equal Opportunity Employer?" The boss said no, explaining that we probably didn't want to hire a black person because they might have to answer the phone. This was in 1993. Posted by: Matt Weiner at June 24, 2003 06:23 AM | PERMALINKYou missed it Richard Aubrey, Rehnquist said that it created a situation whereby ALL qualified blacks were accepted. Qualified isn't a difficult concept. The damage done by slavery and Jim Crow can be seen daily. When the need for Affirmative Action is eliminated, there won't be any big debates or even any notice taken, it will just die of it's own accord because universities and employers (I am mixing in Equal Opportunity here) won't hire, fire or evaluate based on racial considerations anymore, the symptom of racism that these programs were initiated to remedy. This isn't to say that there is no room for improvement in the programs. It may very well be that some programs place too high a value on race and this should be remedied. There may be other improvements that could be made. The object is to level the field making it more competitive and giving everyone the same educational and economic opportunities. Anything that accomplishes this goal is fine with me. Anything that tips the tables even more in favor of caucasians is retrograde and serves the agenda of racists. If we didn't need AA and EO, they wouldn't exist. Posted by: Phreddy at June 24, 2003 06:24 AM | PERMALINK"There is no "racism" problem in America with respect to Jews, Irish, Poles, Southeast Asians, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis and not very much of one with respect to African and West Indian immigrants." D-Squared, you're one of the smartest bloggers around, but you're not from around here. We probably finally got the anti-Irish stuff under control, despite a horrendous history, but everybody else on your list very clearly still faces racism in this country. Posted by: rea at June 24, 2003 06:52 AM | PERMALINKI have no idea what Rehnquist was talking about. The UM undergrad AA
program added enough point to otherwise unqualified applicants so that
they qualified. Who will decide that AA, just for example at UM, is no longer
necessary? The problem with college admissions is the public school
system, and most big-city schools, 1, get more funding than most other
systems (a few exceptions) in their states, and 2, their grads rarely
qualify for first-tier universities. "The UM undergrad AA program added enough point to otherwise unqualified applicants so that they qualified." Wrong Mr. Aubrey--contrary to the stipulation of the parties in the case. Everyone who got into UM under the program was qualified--UM doesn't have enough room for all qualified applicants. Posted by: rea at June 24, 2003 07:14 AM | PERMALINKRichard, I think you'd have needed to hear the Tulia comment in its context. It was chillingly obvious that the woman speaking simply didn't care that innocent people were in jail. They didn't matter to her; their imprisonment was acceptable and perhaps even desirable. In a set of convictions that amounted to rounding up a goodly percentage of the town's black population, it speaks for itself. On the issue of qualification, these kids are ALL qualified to go to these universities. It's all about composition. I am more or less in favor of using economics as the primary discriminator, instead of or in addition to race. This will often result in the same thing due to the basic structure of our society at the moment. Posted by: Ross Judson at June 24, 2003 07:29 AM | PERMALINKDoes anyone know the graduation rate of those minorities who were admitted only because they received the "bump-up" because of their minority status, in relation to the larger student body? Posted by: raj at June 24, 2003 07:35 AM | PERMALINK"The person in Tulia who said that some of those people were guilty might be right. You don't know... Until we know whether the speaker was speaking from genuine knowledge, there's no reason to consider it racist." Richard, the evidence is so unbelievably lacking that the prosecution itself has (finally) determined that ALL of the cases should be dismissed. That's more than unusual - it's frankly astounding, especially in Texas, and it indicates that the drug "sting" was garbage from day one. There isn't any "genuine knowledge" on which to base speculation, in other words. But the larger point is this: for some people, the takehome lesson of the Tulia atrocity is "well, some of those people are probably guilty." (To address your implausible caveat, I'll point out that I've heard this comment myself, more than once, from people NOT speaking from knowledge of the case, "genuine" or otherwise). How is that comment useful, to even the slightest degree? Given the horror of the situation, what's the point in speculating that someone is "probably" be guilty? I'll tell you what the point is: that comment is an attempt to minimize the evil that occurred in Tulia, and distract attention from it. It shouldn't even be part of the discussion, but the fact that it is indicates that racism and racial ignorance are alive and well in this country. As Kevin pointed out in a different post, emphasis is everything. The Tulia fiasco creates a rather striking context, but for many people, speculation about whether "some" of the victims are "probably" guilty is what's crucial. These individuals just don't want to hear or acknowledge that the criminal justice system screwed partiular Tulia residents over because those particular residents were black and poor. These individuals would rather focus on the miniscule probability that "some" (two? ten? who cares?) of the victims were guilty of something, and by implication deserved the treatment they got - as did, presumably, everyone else that got caught up in the web created by the "guilty" parties' phantom crimes. That's what makes it an ignorant, racist comment. Posted by: ryan b at June 24, 2003 07:43 AM | PERMALINKThe kids who are "all" qualified would be actually qualified to get into UM if the school were about six times bigger. True enough, Richard. I look forward to AA's most vocal opponents jumping en masse onto the "let's fix inner city public schools" bandwagon, and to them fighting for the funding to pull it off. But I won't be holding my breath. Clearly, it's less trouble to oppose the extra points for college admission. Posted by: ryan at June 24, 2003 07:58 AM | PERMALINKLife on the plantation is affirmed by SCOTUS; whether the motivation is benevolent or malevolent is irrelevant. Posted by: steve at June 24, 2003 07:58 AM | PERMALINKAubrey, you just have to spin this so that UM is admitting unqualified kids, don't you? Um instead recognizes that the tools for making distincitions among these kids--gpa, SAT, etc., aren't sharp enough to make that kind of distinction. No unqualified kids get into UM. Posted by: rea at June 24, 2003 08:02 AM | PERMALINKThe problem would go away if there were sufficient funding so that there were room for all who are qualified to go to college could do so at the University of their choice. The question of who is more qualified will always be subjective. Until we can figure out how to peer into the future to see who will succeed and who will not the argument over who gets in is specious. These colleges also discriminate between applicants over other factors. Why is it the only one that causes people to turn green is race? . Posted by: Marie Foster at June 24, 2003 08:21 AM | PERMALINKHow does letting a black kid into a university when he does not otherwise qualify repair the effects of slavery on the slaves? -- Richard, you use the exact same lie that most opponents of affirmative action do - the purpose of affirmative action isn't to bump marginal candidates up to admitted candidates. The purpose, as stipulated by UM and virtually every college that uses it, is to select among the qualified applicants a pool of racially and ethnically diverse candidates for admission. THe big question that most anti-affirmative action activists can't answer is - why did "less qualified" white candidates get into the UM law school over the plaintiffs in the case? It couldn't have been affirmative action, yet the school wasn't sued for whatever process put those "unqualified" white students in. It betrays something very nasty to automatically assume that if you're a minority candidate, you're automatically not qualified. Posted by: jesse at June 24, 2003 08:23 AM | PERMALINKMarie asks: "Why is it the only one that causes people to turn green is race?" Because it is the least valuable in assessing, subjectively or objectively, the ability and potential of the candidate. Race is the most superficial of differentiators - in fact many people mistakenly use it as a synonym for skin color. If we set aside every other qualifier, knowing the race of an individual tells you nothing about their ability, background, motivation, and potential - especially in a heterogeneous society such as that which exists in the United States. Posted by: steve at June 24, 2003 08:36 AM | PERMALINKMarie: These colleges also discriminate between applicants over other factors. Why is it the only one that causes people to turn green is race? The narrow answer to that question is that of those other factors (with the possible exception of sex), only the racial factor is a constitutional one, due to the fact that civil rights legislation and Constitutional amendments refer to it specifically. The broad answer is, well, I don't know.....I suspect it's partly because many, if not most Americans are uncomfortable talking about race and its impact on American society; I'll freely admit I still am. Posted by: Brian Schefke at June 24, 2003 08:45 AM | PERMALINK"There is no "racism" problem in America with respect to Jews, Irish, Poles, Southeast Asians, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis and not very much of one with respect to African and West Indian immigrants." D-Squared: I believe it's a misconception that AA is to address racism, as in the kind of racism that is exhibited with racial slurs. With that sense of racism, you are probably largely correct. AA is designed to challenge institutional racism, the kind that results in direct correlation between minority racial status, poverty, and poor access to education. AA is an acceptable salve until the real problems, begun with Reconstruction, are finally addressed. Minorities, black in particular, must become fully integrated members of the community, and I believe the only way this can be accomplished is by dislocating school funding from local property taxes (wealthy districts, wealthy schools). Until that happens, American society will continue to owe the minority community for the fact that, with Reconstruction (and of course slavery), racism was institutionalized and those effects have never been exorcised. Posted by: Kriston at June 24, 2003 08:55 AM | PERMALINKGood points. Opponents of AA are extremely interested in inner-city
education. That's why they keep running for office in big cities, a
thankless job. But "fighting for funding" isn't the key. Look at the
per-pupil expenditures in the big city and the surrounding systems.
Hell, my system has the second-lowest in several counties, and the
second-best results. Our spending is far below the nearest big city.
The keys are other items, including ending corruption, turfing out
incompetent principals, getting books from warehouse to classroom before
Thanksgiving. Every proposed solution runs into an entrenched
constituency eager to play the race card. How much money does it take
to audit principals? See Detroit. Not much. Saddest thing about AA in California is that it attempts to address institutional racism by discriminating against Asian students. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at June 24, 2003 09:32 AM | PERMALINK"People turn green" because "race ... is the least valuable (criterion) in assessing, subjectively or objectively, the ability and potential of the candidate." This is pretty darn debatable - how about legacy points, awarded if your parents attended U-M, or athletics points, in relation to a candidate's academic potential? These might form the basis of lawsuits from rejected students whose parents didn't go to university, or who had physical disabilities preventing them from being 'sufficiently athletic'. I don't know why the University gives points for these, but they seem equally objectionable. Points based on the parents' university attendance, in particular, seem to be diametrically opposed to fairness and opportunity for all. My guess why race is the hot issue now is that it has been _the_ problem for decades - or longer - in the States, because of slavery and segregation and the measures needed to end them. In the U.K., class is the perennial issue par excellence, hence there are endless controversies over why this or that Oxford college rejected this or that 'public school' (i.e. posh private school) or 'comprehensive' (i.e. mediocre publically funded school) pupil. Posted by: Thomas Dent at June 24, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINKSome people here seem to be under the impression that, were it not for race, the debated U-M system would be solely based on academic qualification and would be a meritocratic one. This is quite inaccurate - any arguments that the race points undermine a principle of pure academic competition are bogus, since there never was such a principle. The old U-M system, where a maximum of 110 out of 150 points are academic, includes such things as 10 points for MI residency, 6 points for an 'underrepresented MI county', 10 points 'at the Provost's discretion', etc. etc. Clearly it's a big hodgepodge in which there is no overriding principle, although academic qualification plays the major part. If you're really committed to the better academic student always winning over the worse, you'd have to make a hell of a lot more changes than just discarding the race-based points. So, Mr. Aubrey, tell us whether you would like U-M, and dozens of other colleges, to switch to a rigidly academic criterion. Posted by: Thomas Dent at June 24, 2003 10:14 AM | PERMALINKRichard says: "Sorry, folks, that extra twenty points awarded for melanin were not awarded for achievement, determination, grades, scores. In fact, those points were added so that the total would be sufficient for admission, which means the total without them wouldn't have been sufficient." Achievement? Determination? You just rattled off an extensive list of problems in the inner city school systems. Doesn't the fact that a minority kid somehow managed to beat his way through all of that mean he/she has achieved something? I don't mean to imply that all minorities go through this experience, but there are certainly a lot who do. You keep arguing that there is a LINE somewhere, firmly established, razor thin. Once you cross the line you're in; otherwise you're not qualified. It simply isn't so. The line is wide and blurry and depends on a lot of factors, race/socioeconomic status being one of them. These are all "maybe" kids, from the perspective of the university. They'll all succeed at the school. We simply don't know enough about white kid A and black kid B to compare in a general sense. There is no simple formula. As such, we should LET universities do what they want. Posted by: Ross Judson at June 24, 2003 10:15 AM | PERMALINKRoss, you don't understand. Even a valedictorian at an inner-city school might not come close to qualifying for UM.
Affirmative action is being applied at the wrong end of the educational systems. When minorities need their SAT scores boosted by hundreds of points to qualify for entrance, then they are under-prepared for the courses that follow. If they are going to graduate at the same rate as whites and asians, then they are going to have to perform way above their SAT scores, or they are going to need their grades boosted all the way through college. What happens, in reality, is that they drop-out at greater rates than whites or asians, or they take longer to graduate. The underlying problem is that the school system does a poor job preparing minorities for college, starting at Kindergarten. Even when minorities are in good school systems, they do not perform as well as their peers. John Ogbu identified cultural factors and peer pressure as factors that prevent minority students from working hard at school (acting white). Fixing the schools and negative minority attitudes to education would make affirmative action unnecesary, but that would mean vouchers or taking on the teachers' unions. Posted by: Pat D at June 24, 2003 12:23 PM | PERMALINKRichard, somewhere around 12% of the population of this country is black. Without race (or equivalents) as a tool in University admissions, various universities have indicated that black admissions would drop to around 1% or so. According to your pure merit ideas, this is just the way it is, and only around 10% of blacks are capable of "keeping up" with everybody else, on this level playing field. So they're somewhere around 10% as smart, according to that metric. That seems pretty ludicrous to me, and it probably seems ludicrous to you as well. After all, we're all human. So how do we try to explain that 10x difference in rates? We look to systemic factors -- it's the only thing that makes sense. A race-based adjustment is a single coarse mechanism for applying a delta to accomodate a series of historical/cultural/systemic problems that have led to the 10% situation. Or do you think that the 1% admission rate for blacks is about right? I really want to apologize for putting words in your mouth, and I don't want to polarize the debate too much. I do NOT accuse you of any hidden subtext here -- I am just trying to put it in starkly mathematic terms. I think we can argue extensively about the degree to which affirmative action should be applied. I must confess that I was startled the first time I saw the scoring system placing race far beyond the SAT score, for example. Scoring is just arguing about how far the dial should be turned, not whether the dial should be turned at all. This administration displays a distressing love of convenience when selecting its firmest moral positions. Posted by: Ross Judson at June 24, 2003 12:33 PM | PERMALINK"When minorities need their SAT scores boosted by hundreds of points to qualify for entrance, then they are under-prepared for the courses that follow." Pat, it doesn't happen. Affirmative action doesn't lead to people being admitted with SAT scores getting boosted hundreds of points We see in this thread a series of posts by people like Pat and Aubrey, who don't want to confront the reality of the programs they are attacking--they'd rather attack straw men. Let me repeat, the parties to bothe UM cases,INCLUDING THE PEOPLE WHO WERE REJECTED AND SUED, stipulated taht the UM programs did not ever lead to admission of someone who wasn't qualified to be admitted. If you can't accept that fact, then you're off in your own alternative universe, not discussing issues that arise in this one. Posted by: rea at June 24, 2003 12:37 PM | PERMALINKThere are two issues. Rea, you well know that stipulations are a matter of tactics and not necessarily reality. Here is a link to the UM 'factors' http://www.freep.com/pdf/2003/02/13/umpoints.pdf Being a minority is worth 20 points Getting the lowest possible score on the SAT is worth 0 points. Getting the highest possible score on the SAT is worth 12 points. Getting a 3.0 GPA is worth 60 points, getting a 4.0 is worth 80 points. Therefore, according to the UM criterea, Race is worth more than the difference between getting the worst possible score on the SAT and the best possible score on the SAT. Does that help your 'all are qualified argument'? I think not. According to the UM system the a difference in race is worth the difference of an entire GPA level. Does that help your 'all are qualified argument'? No. Your criticism of Pat seems unfounded. The UM certainly seems to think that minorities need "SAT scores boosted by hundreds of points to qualify for entrance" They believe it so much that they are willing to make SAT scores count less than race. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at June 24, 2003 01:42 PM | PERMALINKOh, come on rea. Every top-tier univeristy has bare-bones "qualifications" for admission. But students who are actually admitted far exceed these qualifications. For example, the University of Michigan requires incoming freshman to be high school graduates who have completed taken four years of English, three years of math, and two years of science. All incoming freshmen must also take the SAT and have their scores sent to the University. Obvioulsy, under that definition, probably 98% of high school graduates are "qualfiied" for admission to the unviersity. However, the average high school grade point average at the U of M is between 3.6 and 3.8, and the average SAT score is between 1210-1380. So while minority students may, in fact, meet the minium "qualifications" established by the U of M, the fact is that most non-minority students far exceeed these minium qualifications. The whole argument that affirmative action programs only admit "qualified" students is therefore disingenuous. It's a rhetorical smokescreen designed to hide the shameful truth. The problem is, no one is fooled. Whites aren't, and, worse yet, minorities aren't either. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at June 24, 2003 01:42 PM | PERMALINKHey, Joe. But the other issues, like leadership, or overcoming difficulties, or whatever, are also possessed by white kids. Now what? Richard, a comment like that invalidates every point you're trying to make. Why in the world would you say such a thing, and why in the world should I listen to anything else you say? Posted by: Kriston at June 24, 2003 02:19 PM | PERMALINKLook. We certainly need more integration on Kriston. NAMBLA? Does anyone else wonder why conservative adult males raise the issue of NAMBLA so often? It almost seems that they have a fixation about adult male on child male sex. Very strange. Posted by: raj at June 25, 2003 06:09 AM | PERMALINKCheap shot, Raj. No surprise. "what the black thing is that diversity is supposed to provide Note that Michigan is about the most highly segregated state "Cheap shot, Raj. No surprise." Cheap shot? I doubt it. A few years ago, I monitored (and even posted on) the FreeRepublic.com web site. I was amazed that virtually every thread that involved gay people would devolve into rants about NAMBLA and how gay people (gay men, of course--the people posting there would largly ignore gay women) wanted to molest children. I have a couple of theories as to why they believed that--the only one that made any sense is that they were projecting. "Conservative adult males are strongly against child rape. Perhaps that's why we are in the minority." Maybe so. I suspect that most of the rest of us are strongly against rape of anyone. Even adult males. BTW, during the height of the catholic priest child sex abuse scandal, I did a little research on the internet a couple of years ago and was amazed at what I found out about child abuse among conservative protestant clergy. Mostly abuse of underage females, but there was more than a bit of abuse of underage males. Moreover I was appalled about this story in this morning's Boston Globe: >Dozens in Scout program abused by police, study says >At least a dozen teenagers assigned to work with police departments as part of the Boy Scouts' Law Enforcement Explorers program have allegedly been sexually abused by officers during the past year. In the past five years, such molestations number at least 25, according to criminologists' research being released today. Sponsors have promised changes to the program, which attracts tens of thousands of teens annually. >Among the recent cases: >The East Ridge (Tenn.) Police Department suspended its Explorer program after Officer Keith Maynard, 31, was charged with two counts of statutory rape and two counts of aggravated child molestation. He was accused of having sex with a 15-year-old girl in the program. He is awaiting trial. >In Haltom City, Texas, former police officer John Ross Ewing, 28, was indicted by a grand jury in March on charges that he sexually assaulted two male Explorer scouts, ages 15 and 16, at his apartment. >In San Bernardino, Calif., Freddie Lee Johnson, 34, pleaded guilty in April to having sex with a 16-year-old girl on a scout-related camping trip. According to court records, the girl woke up and found the officer on top of her. He was sentenced to 60 weekends in jail. I doubt if these people are particularly liberal. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/176/nation/ (I split the link between the two lines)
We're not saying that it's a matter of enjoyment. I picked NAMBLA, Raj, for one particular reason. And it's not
because of some particular fascination, which is, of course, your
implication. That's why I called it, and still call it, a cheap shot. You probably missed the other "points" that are non-merit based, but
still benefit primarily whites. Namely, the 20-point "Lower income"
category, which CANNOT be stacked with the Minority category, even
though it is supposed to help disadvantaged minorities. So essentially,
it is lower-class WHITES that benefit. To me, from a university's perspective, diversity IS a laudable goal; it allows them to be seen as rich in substance, with numerous views and backgrounds. Of course, we all know that most colleges do things in their own interest. It's no less than, say, MIT merely wanting the most ambitious students, or Yale wanting to uphold its image. And do you offer ANY evidence that U of M (Or ANY college, for that matter) is using quotas of minorities? Or is it just simply another accusation without any substance? And comparing GLBT with pedophilia and rape is nothing more than sickening. Posted by: Assamite at November 25, 2003 10:14 PM | PERMALINKIn response to dsquared 6/24/03, the Irish are almost racially identical to the English, being compried of the descendents of Celts, Normans and Viking. I wouldn't really classify the Poles as a racial minority either! Posted by: hotheadedpaddy at April 26, 2004 08:35 AM | PERMALINK
Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 7818 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 10:19 AM | PERMALINK572 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 11:37 PM | PERMALINK2342 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 10:26 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 |
||||
