This is actually an incredible article - but I doubt you will get anyone to read it - much less be able to understand what it actually says. The Liberal mantra on this site is limited to White = Bad and Rich = Bad...when the argument is more subtle or breaks down on different racial lines, they don't know how to comprehend it. For example, RCADE will flag and delete any post that implies that Jews control the media, US government policy, etc (despite many articles that would seems to show that view to be true) so this paper - which is pointing out the bias in elite college admissions - and looks at non-jewish whites and Asians being discriminated against at the hands of the predominantly jewsish admission officers - so they will not know how to handle this article. Once someone points out that jews are over-represented at Harvard by a 10:1 ratio, RCADE's impulse will be to flag/delete/deny because he does not know how to come to terms with it. Once someone points out that Asians are being systematically discriminated against in favor or lower scoring, but richer jews, his head will likely start to spin. Lastly, you will have the ultra-liberal 'RC is a social construct crowd' on here that deny the existence of race - but have no issue identifying a black dude to shower with government handouts.

JS; There is a way to point out systematic racism if it exists. You're not doing it right. I'm not sure why "libs" are also part of it in any case.

#3 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Libs are part of it because they are incapable of ever thinking whites can be discriminated against given their firm belief in 'white privilege'. Some will even go to the extent of saying that blacks are incapable of racism - ridiculous argument but some on the left still make it. As far as 'pointing out systematic racism' - I am doing nothing of the sort. I just commented on the article - which outlines very clearly that it does indeed exist (in the past and now) but you would probably already know that if you actually took the time to read and understand the article (refer back to my 2 caveats in my first post). The problem with Liberals is that you prefer to believe your high ideals as opposed to your 'lying' eyes.

Overt racism is the hallmark of black leadership and uneducated whites
#5 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Mustang - in my experience, hiring managers typically try to hire someone like themselves as they view themselves as the prototype for an ideal employee. As a result, most hiring managers will hire within their own gender and race. However, in the US over the last 15 years, I have seen a completely different picture emerge. As the PC culture has taken hold and hiring decisions are more dominated by HR, we get white, male hiring managers not just putting all candidates on equal footing - but active discrimination against white male applicants. At my past company, any hire and promotion of a white male resulted in a questionnaire asking the manager to justify the move as opposed to an 'under represented' candidate. As a result, a white male hiring manager was much more likely to hire a hot chick (of any race) as opposed to the most qualified applicant because it was just easier. The same hiring managers that were ethnic - typically still hired exclusively within their ethnic group. Indian managers hired Indian workers, Jews hired jewish workers. The people that lost out in this were:

1.) White males due to discrimination
2.) Asian males due to discrimination

Asian were a special case as it was very hard for them to move up in the company. Asians are stereotyped as the data monkeys and engineers as opposed to strategic managers. As a result, not many Asian males were the hiring managers. If they were, I don't know if they would follow the same hiring managers as I observed with the Indians and Jews but I suspect that they would.

JS both to think this is some kind of fight conservatives are waging against "libs".

#8 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

There is a war, and white males and Asians are losing. It has also been systematic. For instance, the way education is done at every level now favors the learning style of females. The result has been a decreasing amount of males in higher education. All HR departments must also practice a form of systematic racism to ensure that they have a diverse workforce despite the fact that college graduates in certain fields does not represent 'America at large'. The direct result is the lack o meritocracy all all the meaningful levels of life. So far, white males and Asians and sat back and let it happen. Let me tell you from experience, they will only take it for so long and you (and no one else for that matter) will like it went the rage and resentment hits a boiling point.

Notice how no one is commenting on this article. It is not in the Liberal mindset to demand equal access to higher education for white men and Asians. Sad.

what kind of asian?

#13 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Based on IQ studies - I am guessing it is East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) that are being discriminated against as opposed to Indians, and South East Asians (Viet, Cambo, Lao, Thai, etc) at the elite schools.

Of course not, I want my white son to be out picking cotton! I want him to have disadvantages all his life. I hope he dies poor.

#16 | POSTED BY DANNI

In an ironic sort of way, that is exactly what you are promoting using your inter-generational theft via SS and ever increasing national debt - but that is a discussion for another thread. Danni - I think everyone here knows that if a black dude was being discriminated against in a job interview - you would be the first one protesting. However, when the same is happening to your own son, you are silent and mocking the very type of discussion that could help him.

Gee Jacque---you seem to know all the problems---any solutions?

#18 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

Well Bob, the way I see it is - we either enforce total meritocracy where an applicant pool is not rejected simply for being all male (for instance) and we do not send a questionnaire asking when an under represented minority did not get hired/promoted every time a white male candidate is hired or we do away with all the rules and just let the people hire whomever they want. We should also end all quotas in the US government that favor given contracts to minority owned businesses. If a firm is a seen as racist - and the marketplace rejects racism, then they will quickly be out of business so we could rely on that correction mechanism. As it stands now, we have one set of rules for white males and Asians and another rule for everyone else. Lastly, if we are going to try to make the field fair, then we should have our major businesses reflect American population at large. We can start with:

Wall Street Banks
US Media Corporations
Hollywood
Legal profession
Medical profession
Elite School Admission
Supreme Court of US
Ending all classes that promote a racial or gender group

These are the positions that are the most powerful in the US. I would love to see how our country would change if we made these positions representative of the US population as a whole. I would love to see some protestants and atheists on the Supreme Court for instance.

Uh, there's no such thing as a "female learning style," not in any discussion of learning styles I've been privy to.

#22 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

Do you live under a rock? Try a little Googling before you make yourself look any more foolish.

Sorry, Jacquey Boy. I'm a teacher. Never heard of it.

#27 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

Will Stanford work for you? Seriously, I have to question if you really are a teacher if you honestly have never heard of this. If you read, they say that rote memorization favors boys - and most classes have been moving away from that style of learning not to make kids smarter - but to eliminate the gender gap. As a result, boys are now even or behind girls in math/science while still being behind in traditional areas where women excelled historically (like language arts). BTW, there are no proposed changes in language arts to close the gender gap because boys are being systematically discriminated against.

Nnnnnnnnnnoooooooo! YOu won't get away with the lie. SS is paid for, 2.5 trillion surplus.
#26 | POSTED BY DANNI

Danni - I suggest you cry your crocodile tears to the rich baby boomers that decided on these policies and maybe they will help out the poor baby boomers so you are not starving on the street. As for Gen X and Gen Y - leave us the hell out of it. We have no $2.5T debt to you or anyone else. Once you guys pay back the $16T in federal debt you racked up and plan to pass on to Gen X, Y, Z, etc, we can maybe discuss the $2.5T in SS funds. If you honestly think SS will be paying out as promised for even the next 20 years, you have a hole in your head.

And where's the stuff about boys being discriminated against in language arts (which I like to call English)?
#32 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

How about the NYT? I actually did not even think it was necessary to link to that fact as it is universally known.

If you can't answer the question in post #21, your whole philosophy needs to be rethought.

#30 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

What are you babbling about here? I told you - we either need to make it truly fair (not discriminate against white male and Asians) or simply get rid of all the PC rules altogether. The way it works now clearly does not work given the over-representation of certain ethnic groups in the positions that are the most powerful in the US. Is that clear enough for you or do I need to shorten everything down to 2 syllables or less?

Jacque want to get a college degree in mathematics without sitting quietly in a classroom listening to a professor teach him because he considers doing that would be to "pussify" himself.
#37 | POSTED BY DANNI

Danni - I doubt you read any of the provided links before responding because if you had, you would realize how incorrect your statement above is. First, the 'pussify' refers to the MATERIAL covered in the class, not asking a boy to sit and listen to a lecture. Studies have conclusively shown that boys are much more interested in reading books about war (for instance) than about emotional issues. In the past, these types of materials were used extensively in schools - think The Red Badge of Courage, etc - but are now no longer taught as schools try to get rid of any material with violence, etc. As a result, boys aren't attracted to the material, lose interest, and fall behind. Actually go back and read the NYT link that I provided and educate yourself on this topic if you would like to debate it more thoroughly because you are not using facts currently.

Jacque, "being discriminated against" and "losing ground" are not the same thing.

Unless you are arguing for the genetic superiority of women over men in academic matters, both groups should perform equally in academic tasks. The fact that we have a persistent and growing gap in the area of language arts shows that there is obvious favoritism occurring that benefits females. Many studies have pointed out that the change in teaching style to more collaboration and less emphasis on memorization favors females. Other studies have pointed out that the choice of materials covered (not allowing certain types of books) affects whether male students stay engaged in the class. As a teacher - I ask you - do you teach the same types of books in your class as you were forced to read when you were growing up? I am sure your choices are much different and that change in material has disadvantaged your male students.

And when you talk about material being "pussified," you lose me right away. If you think the only model for boys has to be machismo and bluster,

Studies show that boys are more interested in that material - right or wrong does not matter - it is still a fact. If you are removing books on war, etc from your class materials, your male students will not have the same level of interest as if you had included them. I don't care about your personal feelings about if boys need machismo - fact is (as proven through many tests) that these are the types of materials that they respond to and by not providing them, you are disadvantaging your male students - which is discrimination.

yeah, the education system is out to RUIN BOYS!!! And look out for the commies under your bed, too.

It was not to ruin boys - it was to close the gender gap. The result of the plan to 'fix' the gender gap has resulted in lower male achievement - all test prove this out including the increase 'reverse' gender gap now seen. I don't think it was the intent of the policy, but it was the end result.

If you really want to talk about rote memorization, I'm all for it, but I would ask you to look up the arguments against it (or to listen if I were to spell some out : ) ).

I would argue that our student base is learning less in school than ever before. Basic math and writing skills continue to deteriorate. I would argue that the change of focus off rote memorization has not helped improve student achievement.

I firmly believe that it has a place in fundamentals, but really only that. Times tables: good. Memorizing uses of the apostrophe: good. But education is in HOW you use those things, not THAT you KNOW them.

I would argue the proper use of an apostrophe is just about the most useless skill imaginable. Further, without rote memorization of the core concept of any discipline, its proper application is impossible. For instance, I consider Physics to be the application of the core concepts of mathematics - if you don't get math, you will not exceed in their field. Systematically, we have de-emphasized rote memorization and its effects on boys achievement in higher order application has suffered as a result.

Thank you as well for at least taking the time to discuss this rationally.

However, you seem to be leading to a premise where men's special educational needs are no longer being accommodated.

Well, these 'special' needs apply to 49% of all humanity so don't try to pretend like it is some corner case. Further, this 'special' need is the way education was done for hundreds of years - right up the 1990's and the rise of PC culture. BTW, the rest of the nations in the world that are kicking our butts in education still practice this same exact style of education.

That's a big "if." What books on war are being removed? From what classes?

#45 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You really don't have a clue on this do you? Let me help, below is the recommended reading list for the State of CA for Grades 3-5 (I only went A-K due to length)

Advice for a Frog
Beauty of the Beast: Poems from the Animal Kingdom
Black Cat
Bringing the Rain to Kapiti Plain
Casey at the Bat: A Ballad of the Republic Sung in the Year 1888
Celebrating America: A Collection of Poems and Images of the American Spirit
Child's Garden of Verses, A
Dancing Teepees: Poems of American Indian Youth
Don't Read This Book, Whatever You Do!
Falling Up
Festivals
Flicker Flash
From Sea to Shining Sea: A Treasury of American Folklore and Folksongs
Gold Fever
Good Books, Good Times!
Graphic Alphabet
Grassroots: Poems by Carl Sandburg
Great Frog Race and Other Poems, The
Hailstones and Halibut Bones
Harlem
Honey, I Love and Other Love Poems
If I Were in Charge of the World and Other Worries: Poems for Children and Their Parents
In Daddy's Arms I Am Tall: African Americans Celebrating Fathers
Iron Horses
Knock at a Star: A Child's Introduction to Poetry

Tell me where is the Call of the Wild, The Red Badge of Courage, etc? You will not find anything like them anymore because we can not do anything in our schools that might encourage boys to act like - well, boys.

Hundreds of years? You mean back when girls' education was about getting ready for a husband and children? Yeesh.
#49 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

I don't know if you missed it, but along with boys falling behind girls in education, BOTH are falling behind our international competition which relies on the type of rote memorization, etc that served boys very well in the past. In my opinion, our teaching style has resulted in a lower academic achieving group as a whole even though it did eliminate the boy over girl gender gap. My argument would be that we closed the gap by handicapping boys rather than empowering girls - given that the better academic nations did not follow in our footsteps and are better preparing their kids for the future economy, I think we did our children a disservice. It is not just me telling you think - Stanford University and the NYT also agree.

I read those in grades, I think it was eight and ten. Come to think of it we didn't read The Red Badge of Courage, instead it was All Quiet on the Western Front.

Also, what doess The Call of the Wild have to do with "boy-excitement-inducing" war? Nothing as I recall.

#52 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I guess my education was just accelerated compared to yours as we read both of those books in 5th grade. We did not read All Quiet until high school. I actually re-read that book about 2 years ago - it should be required reading by our politicians before they declare war and send our kids off to die.

As for call of the Call of the Wild - it is rugged, manly story that actually stimulates boy's imaginations by having some danger, violence, etc (studies show this is what they are drawn to). It shows that actions have consequences and all the other important life lessons. There is a reason why it has always been assigned reading.

And I bet you're not as old as Jacque! : ) I know you're not as old as I.

#55 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

Wrong, I am a young pup compared to Kanrei.

I really don't get your gripe, Jacque.
Is Lord of the Flies no longer in heavy rotation?

#63 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Snoofy, the test data clearly shows that males are falling behind females in academic performance - this is fact and not debatable. Studies have shown that males respond to different books than females - this is fact and not debatable. The types of books males respond to are no longer taught as schools as schools try to eliminate any mention of violence in their materials - this is a act and not debatable. By the time a book like Lord of Flies is offered as an option (grades 9-12), the male students have already fallen hopelessly behind the female students. Further, because they were not engaged during the fundamental learning years, they lack the skills to comprehend more advanced materials (we are talking about on average here - not every single case). So, at the end of the day, this achievement gap will widen - meanwhile, both males and females in the US are being left in the dust by our foreign competition that did not change to our style of teaching from the 1990's on.

Women enter puberty sooner than men. Why can't that alone explain their academic edge?
#66 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Actually, puberty negatively effects brain development so this would not support your argument at all - this is once again - test data.

Maybe men falling behind women is a sign of a good educational system. Why can't that be?

If you think we are all genetically the same (neither gender genetically superior for academic tasks) then anything other than equal outcomes would point to discrimination/environment being the cause. I did not invent this theory - it has been proposed and studied and proven to be at least partially correct. As to the genetic superiority part - interestingly, the highest achieving students (AMB perfect SAT scores, etc) are still overwhelmingly male.

Hm. You sound older. And your experience of reading seems to belong to an earlier generation. Intriguing. Where did you go to school? Public or private? Affluent, or education-emphasis, district?

I am 36 and from Wisconsin. I went to all public schools best described as 'inner city', so lower middle class by and large. The emphasis of my schooling was math and science - mainly so people would be employable in manufacturing type jobs (papermills, etc). My class probably had a 80% graduation rate.

My experience, Jacque, is that huge numbers of girls are also way behind in "language arts." It's to do with culture and movements like whole language

I agree that materials are not everything. Frankly, my biggest complaint is crap parents. I think public school teachers are given an impossible task if parents are not involved - which is too often the case today. With that said, I think we are hurting boys by punishing and discouraging 'boy behaviors' when the children are already likely to be deprived of proper male role models at home.

How do you make it fair?

Already answered above.

Do you think removing all the PC rules would make things fair? Fair with respect to Asians and white males? - Yes. Fair in the sense that we don't have laws promoting ethnic groups over others - Yes.

Do you think things were fair before the PC rules? No, and they are not fair now either - we just have new masters. So, what is the point of the laws?

Can you use logic at all? Clearly that is a yes on my part.

Can you have a rational discussion? With you? Clearly not as that would require 2 rational parties and you are not holding up your end of the bargain.

The point of all those laws is to make things as EQUAL as possible for opportunity for all races, religions, and gender.
#75 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

Bob, if the laws were put into place to make things equal - and now white men and Asians are being discriminated against and not provided equal opportunity - then I would say those laws are promoting the exact thing they were meant to prevent. So unless you want to simply admit that these laws were put in place to punish white males and Asians rather than making things fair - the laws have more than accomplished their purposes and are now negatively impacting the balance of fairness. With all groups, the oppressed eventually become the oppressor.

I do not believe Asians and whites are being discriminated against...Can you give me an example where the PC laws seemed unfair?

#78 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

Did you not read the article? That was what the entirety of the article was about. The clearest example is in elite universities - which lead directly to the most power positions within America.

I was asking for your thoughts. That's a discussion. I could refer you to some documents as well, but that doesn't really make much of a discussion.

#80 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

You see Bob, I think you do not quite understand how this website works. Someone posts an article - we all read the article, then we comment on the article. In this case, I agree 100% with the article as its example of discrimination in elite university admission is very clearly demonstrable. If you want to tell me why their data is wrong - please do so. But when all the facts are stacked on one side of the argument and you are on the other with nothing but 'I don't think' it really is not a discussion.

Why bother with pissing matches, boys? Or if you're going to, at least make it funny for the rest of us.

#87 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

I can't do pissing matches...I am freshly back from a 21 day exile. I need to get all my posts in now and then quit the site before RCADE kicks me off on his terms. I promised myself that I would only post for a week and then quit for good.

As for my comment - I can't debate with Bob as he clearly did not read any of my prior posts and clearly did not internalize any of the posts that I directed at him. It is not so much a debate where we disagree on the issues but both make intelligent points - it is me stating my opinion and the facts that I used to derive them and Bob stating "I was asking for your thoughts"....um, that is what I just gave him. That is not a debate issue, that is a general level of communication/understanding issue that Bob lacks.

Too bad. I've been enjoying our exchanges of late (well, mostly : ) ).
#93 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

Well, it is a promise that I made to myself. After my posts were censored and I was exiled, I had to do a lot of soul searching. I actually really like the back and forth that some of the posters provide and I actually feel as though I do learn things on here occasionally - I feel that I have a better understanding of the 'boy material' issue after having talked with you.

I fully realize that this is RCADE's site and he can do with it and police it how he wishes - I accept that by posting on here. However, I also realize that I provide a lot of original content in my posts that is useful for RCADE in running his website to attract and retain users. In doing so, I want my points to be published exactly how I wrote them to avoid any misunderstanding by someone going through old posts, etc. As this is not an option any longer, I simply choose to no longer provide my original content for his enrichment. Like I said, I think I can say what I need to say in the next 5 or so days. After that, it will just be repeating the same posts to the same people that refused to listen to reason over and over again.

1. Is this fair?
2. If this is not fair, how would you fx it?

#90 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

If it is a private university that does not accept government funding, then they should do whatever they want. I would hope that the school would receive a poor reputation for taking under qualified applicants and the black students can go and use their skills where they would be more appreciated. Ultimately, such a policy would be self defeating for the university so I do not see the board selecting students lasting too long.

If it is a public university, they they should take the most qualified applicants regardless of race/gender.

I believe most societies are racist, most people are racist, most institutions are racist, and most people are okay with all of the above.

#105 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I agree with this completely. Further, I do not believe it is the place of the government to tell you what to do with your personal property (ie a business) as long as you are not endangering the public. So, I am completely against any government regulations on private business transactions (who to rent to, etc) which favors certain ethnic groups over others.

Me too, but that's not happened in the course of Western civilization nor United States history, so how do we fix the harm that was done?
#107 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Affirmative action would make sense to me if it was applied solely to the generations that were discriminatory in their behavior....but that is not the case. Instead, affirmative action is trying to make up for past wrong by punishing a current generation of people that arguably never benefited from the discriminatory system. How is that fair? That is like me saying to my neighbor "You got this job even though I deserved it more. So, I am going to make sure your grandkid can't get a job 40 years from now". I fail to see how that rights anything - rather, it creates an additional wrong.

I should also add that all white people are not one homogeneous group. I would argue that the poor white people never benefited at all from discriminatory practices but they, and their children, bear the brunt of affirmative actions institutionalized racism. The people that actually benefited from discrimination - the upper middle class and rich, are not even punished by affirmative action. So, again, I fail to see how it addresses anything other than punishing an innocent group of people and creating further racial tension.

That would make sense if institutions didn't outlive the men who created them.
But that's not what happened either.

#110 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Institutions like Harvard? Yes, I am sure the white high school drop out that doesn't get a job at the car plant due to affirmative action really benefited from Harvard's past prejudice policies.

Like I said, this is the scenario where it's a zero-sum game. One job, two people, only one person can get it.

#113 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

From a societal point of view, it is not zero sum as the less capable application will get the job and have lower productivity as a result.

LOL. Poor white people were never subject to being someone else's property.
#115 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That was what - 7 generations ago? No living person today has any memory of every being someone's property. Further, if you look at who owned slaves:

1.) it was the south only
2.) it was limited to a small number of people living in the south
3.) the families that owned slaves were wealthy

If anything, owning slaves made life harder for the non-slave owning whites. They did not benefit from this system as they were competing against free. European immigrants after the civil war (my family included) did not benefit from this system either. If you want to go after the institutions that benefited - go after the wealthy New York money, go after Lehman Brothers - oh...even they are gone at this point. however, don't punish people that never benefited from the system.

It's to help the people whose condition in life today is most impacted by the injustices of those institutions.

#120 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I think you are missing the point. Your policy does not punish the institution - it punishes people that are alive today so that you can promote another group of people that were not alive at the time of the injustice. At the end of the day - it is about people and affirmative action does nothing but discriminate against a group of people that did not do a damn thing wrong. Affirmative action is a hand up by pulling down another group....nothing more.

It's to help the people whose condition in life today is most impacted by the injustices of those institutions.

#120 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I think you are missing the point. Your policy does not punish the institution - it punishes people that are alive today so that you can promote another group of people that were not alive at the time of the injustice. At the end of the day - it is about people and affirmative action does nothing but discriminate against a group of people that did not do a damn thing wrong. Affirmative action is a hand up by pulling down another group....nothing more.

But the injustices still exist. Why are so many blacks in prison, etc?

#129 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I blame a collective mindset of black women that think it is okay to have a child with a man that will not stick around to raise the child. What drove that mindset - well, I place a lot of the blame on government programs that encourages exactly that behavior. I think the black community has also been tremendously self destructive and does not practice long range thinking/planning. That leads to a lack of impulse control which lands people in jail. However, I do not blame it on my ancestors that were farming in Bohemia at the time of slavery.

I believe the idea is that taking opportunities from those who have many and giving those opportunities to those who have few,
#130 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Again - that is not what you are doing by an large with affirmative action. You are not taking from the privileged rich white - you are hurting the working class whites. CEO's are not selected based on affirmative action - but line workers and first line managers are. Your policy does not address the problem that you state.

and then it only applies to government hires and qualified government contractors.

By law, yes. In practice, it applies to just about every single major company in the private sector.

And the idea isn't that we're taking from anyone, it's that we're giving someone an opportunity they should have had but don't because of how history played out.

If there are 2 people going for the same job and you give it to one candidate based upon the color of their skin - you absolutely did take something from the other one.

Maybe you could view affirmative action is an attempt to redress that injustice? Not that two wrongs make a right...

This action, by and large, was brought about by the feminist movement. Once again, the law of unintended consequences. While women burned their bras and cried for sexual liberation, they pretty much doomed the entire black race in the US to life of poverty.

I don't have a problem with the government trying to make right for past injustices, though I can see a chicken-and-egg type scenario.

I have a problem with it. If someone is going to be punished, it should be for a wrong committed by the individual. I don't want to punish anyone based upon what their great grandfather did or what someone did that happened to have the same skin color.

They should, but in the scenario YOU propose which has already been tried in the past, blacks were not allowed into some State Universities at all.
#141 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

I am going to have to disagree with you there Bob. Those universities that held out the longest in denying blacks are pretty much all not seen as quality institutions vs. the universities that did admit blacks before being forced to do so by the federal government. What I find shocking is that any black football player would ever consider playing for Alabama. Obviously, they have forgiven/forgotten this wrong - why can't a white person like yourself?

For what it's worth, I'm an out-of-state student at a public university. So put that in your pipe and smoke it! :)

#145 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I should have guessed that you are currently a student. It explains your mindset a lot.

You didn't answer the question. How would you have fixed the problem of equality at Alabama University
#159 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

As I have stated over and over on this thread, if it is a public university, I would ensure that they use meritocracy. I think assigning student ID's to applications with no place for gender, race, religion checkboxes and eliminating 'campus interviews' would accomplish this easily. By the way, the only ones I know that support gender/race checkboxes are the Liberals that need to continue to propagate the racial divide to maintain their power.

I should add, the only checkboxes that should be allowed on applications from my perspective:

US Veteran?
In State?
US Citizen?
If under 21, did your parents/guardian file a W2 with earnings under $25,000?

How about names? who do you think would get the OK in Alabama---Mahmoud al Wiki

#163 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

Read more carefully - I said assigning student ID's - there would be no names listed.

You put that in quotes as if there's something insidious about the process.
#166 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

There very much is - this is the oldest trick in the book for the rich elite to ensure their kid gets accepted. If we are going to use meritocracy, we need to eliminate subjective measurements.

Most schools have an algorithm to assign a student ID based up SS number and birthday - I don't know why you would not simply follow that process. As to someone 'finding out a race' - well, if the data is never collected on race, there will never be access to this data. How do I ensure the GPA's were computed correctly? - well, we never really know for sure so you set up the proper safe guards and cross your fingers.

Tell me, Jacque: Would you do away with job interviews?

#170 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

It is not practical to do so as prior job experience is directly related to your fitness for the next job - there is not a test you could design for this. In the case of private industry, I think they should be able to do whatever they want. In the public sector, we could follow the chinese civil service exam and simply use that - they did it also to cut out favoritism.

Funny, in my experience, it's a way for kids who may not shine enough on paper to wow the admissions folks and gain acceptance.

#169 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

I think it is a horribly biased way of granting admission.

Whatever they want? Pretty vague.
And define public sector, will you?

#173 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

Not really - anything means anything. If they only want to hire girls that will sleep with the hiring manager or decide it based on arm wrestling - it should be up to the company.

Public vs. Private sector definitions are pretty standard - you can Google that one on your own.

Also, your solution of--"set up the proper safe guards and cross your fingers."---is hardly a plan.
Crossing your fingers was tried for the first 200 years of our country--it doesn't work.
#176 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

Well, setting up safeguards and is how we do about 99.9% of this in life. As for 'it has not worked in 200 years' - well, if that is your belief, then you do not understand your history.

Should businesses be allowed to hire only whites?

#178 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

If it is a private industry? - Yes.

When was there equality in our history? One of us needs a better understanding of our past.

#179 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

That was not the reason I said you don't understand history. You don't understand history because up until the 1990's, I don't think there was really any effort to treat people equally. So, saying 'we tried that for the past 200 years' is absolutely incorrect.

As far as having the government enforce it rather than simply letting people behave how they will - history is ripe with examples. In Ukraine, it led to the Homodor. In Russia, it led to mass murder. In China, it lead to mass murder and starvation. In Cambodia, it led to a genocide. Even the communist countries that did not commit mass murder still had a total and complete failure in their economic system. So, I think I will just let people work it out themselves rather than getting the government involved.

Should businesses be allowed to hire only whites?

#178 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

If I own a hardware store and have 4 sons - should I be allowed to hire them all even though they are white males and I may have a qualified black applicant? In my belief, if it is your personal property, you should be able to do with it as you please as long as it is not endangering society. If that means hiring only whites, so be it.

Should ALL businesses be allowed to hire only whites if they wanted?

#184 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

Already asked and answered in #180.