After the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was passed, reversing the USSC decision approving anti-white discrimination at the University of Michigan, I know U of M tried the usual lawsuit stonewalling, but were overruled including at the USSC. Is the U of M finally in compliance with the MCRI?

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Why is it that you anti-AA people never protest about the Basketball or Football team being all black?

"Put that ball in the hoop Ni........"

Peace.

__________________
people of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

Because as is well known, sports teams are one of the last redoubts of meritocracy in our society. Although I've heard they stick some white guys on NBA teams in an "affirmative action" move so they won't be all black.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

So in other words you don't have a problem with the basketball team being all black especially if it increases the opportunity for your school to win a National Championship just as long as they are not getting any medical or law degrees.

From all the asinine threads you have started your problem is not with AA, because you never talk about any other group of minorities that the program has helped, you never speak against the woman you wake up with every morning benefiting from up. Your problem and your only problem is, [b[u]]"BLACK PEOPLE".[/u] [/b]

Just be honest and come out and say that and people probably could respect your position alot better.

Peace.

__________________
people of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

[quote]What are you arguing for? Affirmative action for sports teams???

I've already said that the main beneficiaries are white women, about four times now, but you haven't heard it because you hear what you want to, viz, "Duhhhh, he don't like black people."

"Affirmative action" doesn't "help" anyone.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

i guess you think that if you say this enough it will become true:
having worked with a substantial number of businesses which qualified for 8(a) contracts due to their mnority (and/or gender), i saw many instances where those business owners were able to progress into the mainstream of their respective industries. a couple of those companies would have succeeded without the AA help, but their growth would have been much slower.
the contracting officers were as diverse as the general population. some procurement officials had a real problem working with African-American owned firms, and their arms had to be twisted to compel them to do so. that showed me that but for he AA requirements those minority companies would not have had an opportunity to sell to the federal government at that buying installation. slice it any way you want it, THAT denial of opportunity only due to race is unAmerican.
yes, majority-owned companies hate it that the pizza slices were now thinner so all could receive some. yes, a few unqualified minority owned companies were provided contracts that they could not perform ... but there are a great many majority owned companies who received federal contracts that they too, could not complete.
while there is a genuine need for an effective AA program, it desperately needs to be fixed. we should no longer qualify anyone for any AA program based on their race. the qualification should strictly be due to the individual's socio-economic condition. yes, a disproportionate number who qualify will be from African-American and hispanic persons, but it will exclude individuals who have significant means who would otherwise qualify for AA. it would enable those from the majority population who are without substantial means to qualify for AA assistance where they presently cannot.
members of the asian community qualify because of their minority status, yet when one examines that ethnic group's educational achievement and wealth attainment, many from that minority population are doing better than the average American. if the intent of AA is to assist those who need it to progress economically then the AA programs should screen out those who have no genuine need for its preferential programs. recognize bill gates does not have enough money because he strives to earn more, so no one who can qualify for a program that helps create more wealth is going to deny themselves access to it. which is why we find wealthy minority individuals qualifying for programs they don't really need while majority indivduals who could benefit from the assistance go wanting because of their ethnicity.
such change would conform with the supreme court's expressed requirement that AA programs be narrowly tailored; they now are not as there is no data being compiled to evidence ongoing racial disparity. AA is not supported by much of the majority population because its qualifications are racially based. if we remove the racial requirement and focus on the economic need, Americans from all quarters could be expected to then view AA as a positve mechanism to help the least among us elevate their economic condition.

__________________
1.20.09 - the end of an error

"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do." Joseph Stalin

Life is a sexually transmitted disease having a 100% fatality rate

[quote="Blade";p="408658"]

What is the % of blacks enrolled in college as compared to whites?

What is the % of blacks in the workforce as compared to whites?

What is the % in the population blacks compared to whites?

The percentages are anywhere from 8 - 13% which means whites %s are anywhere from 87 - 92% so please tell me how in the hell is that discrimination.

Peace.

__________________
people of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

[quote="superbadbrutha";p="409073"]You apparently believe in some kind of idiotic racial spoils system, wherein admissions committees are supposed to admit people till they have a certain percentage of racial groups.

Check it out:

"Hey Fred, admit 17.5 more blacks - then we'll have the numbers right."

Actually, that's what admissions committees try to get away with.

But you, and everyone else, is rationally and ethically entitled to >>>NOTHING<<< based on your skin color. The people whoe are entitled to anything anywhere are those who show up with the goods: in the case of educational institutions, test scores and grades.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

[quote="Blade";p="409143"]
....is how asinine and azz backwards your claims of discrimination are. How in the hell if you only make up 8% of 100% are you discriminating against someone?

You are one of those people that probably never had a problem of black people being kept out of Univs and Colleges because of their skin color.

You probably would keep your mouth shut if black people still sat at the back of the bus.

You probably loved it when schools were segregated.

I am willing to bet you don't know one white person personally that has ever been discriminated against.

Just come on out and say what you feel. You hate black people and would love to see them back on the plantation I at least can give your partner Valor credit for having the balls to say so.

Peace.

__________________
people of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

This is true in principle, but it assumes that opportunity was not being separately limited by skin color.

The whole premise of affirmative action is that past (and continuing) discrimination unfairly limits current opportunity, and thus a certain balancing must occur to level the playing field and prevent the majority (whites, in this case) from locking in the benefits of such discrimination.

I believe the premise was valid (and thus, AA was necessary) in the past -- i.e., immediately after the smashing of segregation barriers and "separate but unequal." It would have been absurd and unfair for whites to simply tell blacks, "Sure, we've spent the last few centuries locking in significant advantages in wealth and education, but from now on we'll just compete straight up." Ignoring that the whites still held those centuries of ill-gotten advantages. It's like the whites were professional golfers AND had a handicap besides.

The question is whether it's still valid and necessary now, and how one goes about trying to answer that question with some degree of objectivity.

To my knowledge, neither opponents nor proponents have ever done that with any rigor.

Proponents tend to be outcome-based -- discrimination is presumed until the percentage of blacks admitted to college equals or exceeds their share of the general population.

Opponents tend to simply deny that there are any significant lingering effects of discrimination, while trumpeting the philosophically pure and intellectually ideal standard of "colorblindness."

Me, I tend to think the whole thing could be sidestepped if we focused on economics rather than race. If the system discriminates against blacks, they will tend to be less economically successful. Thus a system that provided increased academic support and opportunity to poorer families would disproportionately benefit blacks as a result -- without discriminating against whites.

So provide scholarships based on financial need (in addition to those for merit), and a mild bump on the admissions ranking using a sliding scale based on income. You'd still be letting in "lesser qualified" applicants at the expense of some slightly better-qualified applicants, but it wouldn't involve race.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.