js1976, you must not understand how affirmative action works these days. No one is arguing that a person who can't read or write or make certain grades should be admitted into a situation they clearly can't handle. We're not talking about quotas, which the Supreme Court struck down years ago. Read above: we're talking about someone who wasn't a top student who believes that black students close to her so-called "objective" qualification level got in and she didn't so that was "reverse discrimination" (a phrase that isn't even logical). At worst, that is allowing race to be a factor on a checklist, and there is nothing wrong with that in order to assure diversity, which is an educational bonus to everyone before you even get to the historic discrimination arguments. That's nothing like what you're implying with your weak "merit" argument, which clearly allows subjectivity--just the kind you approve of.
I do find that most people who adamantly oppose affirmative action have no clue what it actually means in today's world or what logic applies to what does exist (which presumably means that you shouldn't get into the programs that you're complaining about, ironically). And anytime you hear someone use the word "quotas" in this context (which you didn't do, to your credit), you know they're clueless about the topic.
As for disagreeing with you because it's you, get over yourself. With your little fake, scaredy-cat screen name, I can't tell you from anyone else on here who doesn't have the balls to post your opinions under your real name. I'm responding to your arguments, which are particularly weak today because you clearly don't understand the subject very well. You could remedy that if you would.
That's an absurd statement, js1976, and extremely elitist. So you're saying that young people with less-than-stellar "qualifications" (compared to others in the poll) shouldn't be admitted to college!?! That's crazy. There are many ways to determine potential -- plus college experiences aren't just about how great an applicant is. A good college (or business or anything) seeks out all sorts of diversity to give the students who attend a better, more complete education. Good education is all about interaction.
In addition, this country is built on educational institutions that allow admissions based on all sorts of criteria, including whether someone's daddy went there. We have never looked only at some of pseudo-objective "merit" as the only criteria for getting a higher education. And God help us if we ever do.
I can tell you this: I got the Stennis Scholarship to Mississippi State based on all sorts of things other than the kinds of "merit" you speak up. A big part of it was the fact that I was a young woman from a poor neighborhood who could bring different experiences into the mix. My admission to Columbia University clearly took into account the fact I was southern (geographic diversity) and my very non-Ivy League background, which I wrote about in order to be admitted.
I tend to agree with you, Knowledge06. I've long believed that one of the hidden benefits of voter ID is that it is going to motivate more people of color to vote. And it really is not going to stave off the demographic shifts bearing down on our nation. It may be part of the last stand of certain folks to keep the reins of power, but it is a doomed strategy.
Darryl, I'm not arguing for "redistribution" (a word only you have used here, by the way), but who is arguing for "redistribution for redistribution's sake"? You might be arguing with yourself again. Which, admittedly, is kinda cute.
The rest of the US doesn't have voter ID, fishwater. And do we have a "join the rest of the union" talking point y'all are walking out here? I'm seeing two of you doing it on different threads, and the other guys is even quoting Dr. King. Good golly.
donnaladd says...
js1976, you must not understand how affirmative action works these days. No one is arguing that a person who can't read or write or make certain grades should be admitted into a situation they clearly can't handle. We're not talking about quotas, which the Supreme Court struck down years ago. Read above: we're talking about someone who wasn't a top student who believes that black students close to her so-called "objective" qualification level got in and she didn't so that was "reverse discrimination" (a phrase that isn't even logical). At worst, that is allowing race to be a factor on a checklist, and there is nothing wrong with that in order to assure diversity, which is an educational bonus to everyone before you even get to the historic discrimination arguments. That's nothing like what you're implying with your weak "merit" argument, which clearly allows subjectivity--just the kind you approve of.
I do find that most people who adamantly oppose affirmative action have no clue what it actually means in today's world or what logic applies to what does exist (which presumably means that you shouldn't get into the programs that you're complaining about, ironically). And anytime you hear someone use the word "quotas" in this context (which you didn't do, to your credit), you know they're clueless about the topic.
As for disagreeing with you because it's you, get over yourself. With your little fake, scaredy-cat screen name, I can't tell you from anyone else on here who doesn't have the balls to post your opinions under your real name. I'm responding to your arguments, which are particularly weak today because you clearly don't understand the subject very well. You could remedy that if you would.
On U.S. Supreme Court Sends Affirmative Action Case Back to Texas
Posted 26 June 2013, 6:58 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Ah, life with an aggie. ;-)
On U.S. Supreme Court Sends Affirmative Action Case Back to Texas
Posted 26 June 2013, 3:16 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
That's an absurd statement, js1976, and extremely elitist. So you're saying that young people with less-than-stellar "qualifications" (compared to others in the poll) shouldn't be admitted to college!?! That's crazy. There are many ways to determine potential -- plus college experiences aren't just about how great an applicant is. A good college (or business or anything) seeks out all sorts of diversity to give the students who attend a better, more complete education. Good education is all about interaction.
In addition, this country is built on educational institutions that allow admissions based on all sorts of criteria, including whether someone's daddy went there. We have never looked only at some of pseudo-objective "merit" as the only criteria for getting a higher education. And God help us if we ever do.
I can tell you this: I got the Stennis Scholarship to Mississippi State based on all sorts of things other than the kinds of "merit" you speak up. A big part of it was the fact that I was a young woman from a poor neighborhood who could bring different experiences into the mix. My admission to Columbia University clearly took into account the fact I was southern (geographic diversity) and my very non-Ivy League background, which I wrote about in order to be admitted.
On U.S. Supreme Court Sends Affirmative Action Case Back to Texas
Posted 26 June 2013, 1:56 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Darryl, I'm guessing you're smart enough to come up with ways. Give it a shot. This isn't the hardest mind teaser ever.
On The Lumumba Economy
Posted 26 June 2013, 10:50 a.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Good point, Ronni.
On Hosemann: Miss. Voter ID a Go as SCOTUS Guts Voting Rights Act
Posted 25 June 2013, 5:34 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
I tend to agree with you, Knowledge06. I've long believed that one of the hidden benefits of voter ID is that it is going to motivate more people of color to vote. And it really is not going to stave off the demographic shifts bearing down on our nation. It may be part of the last stand of certain folks to keep the reins of power, but it is a doomed strategy.
On High Court Voids Key Part of Voting Rights Act
Posted 25 June 2013, 5:34 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Haha. Me, too. ;-)
On Keep Calm. It's Just the Police Shooting.
Posted 25 June 2013, 5:32 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Darryl, I'm not arguing for "redistribution" (a word only you have used here, by the way), but who is arguing for "redistribution for redistribution's sake"? You might be arguing with yourself again. Which, admittedly, is kinda cute.
On The Lumumba Economy
Posted 25 June 2013, 4:40 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
The rest of the US doesn't have voter ID, fishwater. And do we have a "join the rest of the union" talking point y'all are walking out here? I'm seeing two of you doing it on different threads, and the other guys is even quoting Dr. King. Good golly.
On High Court Voids Key Part of Voting Rights Act
Posted 25 June 2013, 4:38 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Not sure what you mean, Darryl.
On Hosemann: Miss. Voter ID a Go as SCOTUS Guts Voting Rights Act
Posted 25 June 2013, 4:37 p.m. Suggest removal