awwww, the poor little college grad

Mott the Hoople said:
I've been denied opportunities. I wanted to be President of the United States and why not? I'm just as dangerously underqualified as W was!
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't know you were a former jet pilot in the Guard, a two-term governor with an MBA, and corporate experience!! I always just took you for a science nerd... :cof1:
 
Southern Chicken said:
I would love to see how you came up with this. Can you site a some stats? (not the stats you pulled from your ass)
Click to expand...

How could it not happen when you make race a more important factor than qualifications? Regardless of what is in the law, more qualified white males are passed over everyday.
 
AssHatZombie said:
How could it not happen when you make race a more important factor than qualifications? Regardless of what is in the law, more qualified white males are passed over everyday.
Click to expand...


1) Again AA does not make race a more important factor than qualifications. ----Please cite the sections of AA that does---

2) Somewhere in there is AssHatzombie's use of statistics :readit:-------Can you enlarge or bold it for everyone to see?
 
Last edited:
Southern Chicken said:
1) Again AA does not make race a more important factor than qualifications. ----Please cite the sections of AA that does---

2) Somewhere in there is AssHatzombie's use of statistics :readit:-------Can you enlarge or bold it for everyone to see?
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the June 2003 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on affirmative action?

First, what did they decide? By a vote of 5-4 the majority ruled that universities may continue to discriminate against white males by taking race and gender into account when admitting students. Writing for the majority, Reagan appointee Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote: “If admissions decisions were based primarily on undergraduate GPAs [grade point averages] and LSAT [Law Student Achievement Test] scores, . . . a critical mass of underrepresented minority students could not be enrolled.” Indeed, if race were not considered in admissions at the University of Michigan Law School, and minorities not granted preferences, their admission rate would drop from 35 percent of the applicants to a mere 10 percent—and they would compose a tiny 4 percent of the student body. Therefore, the admissions officers “had to consider the race of applicants” in order to enroll a critical mass of such students. University officials defined “critical mass”—and O’Connor quoted them—as “meaningful numbers” and “mean-ingful representation” so underrepresented minorities can “participate in the classroom and not feel isolated.”2 With a critical mass “racial stereo-types lose their force because non-minority students learn there is no ‘minority viewpoint’ but rather a variety of viewpoints among minority students.”3

Even by her own standards, this seems untrue. Stanley Rothman and others in a recent study report that most students and faculty believe educational quality is lowered when large numbers of affirmative action students are on campus.4 Furthermore, ridiculous stereotypes of blacks as intellectually incapable are more likely to be reinforced—among whites, Asians, Hispanics and blacks—when large numbers of lesser-qualified minorities cannot uphold their end in classroom discussions, in the laboratories or on exams. O’Connor’s arguments in behalf of racial preferences in admissions are as spurious as her conclusion—that race preferences to obtain a diverse student body are a “compelling state interest.”


http://www.anthonyflood.com/murrayaaelitewar.htm
 
AssHatZombie said:
What does this have to do with the June 2003 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on affirmative action?

First, what did they decide? By a vote of 5-4 the majority ruled that universities may continue to discriminate against white males by taking race and gender into account when admitting students. Writing for the majority, Reagan appointee Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote: “If admissions decisions were based primarily on undergraduate GPAs [grade point averages] and LSAT [Law Student Achievement Test] scores, . . . a critical mass of underrepresented minority students could not be enrolled.” Indeed, if race were not considered in admissions at the University of Michigan Law School, and minorities not granted preferences, their admission rate would drop from 35 percent of the applicants to a mere 10 percent—and they would compose a tiny 4 percent of the student body. Therefore, the admissions officers “had to consider the race of applicants” in order to enroll a critical mass of such students. University officials defined “critical mass”—and O’Connor quoted them—as “meaningful numbers” and “mean-ingful representation” so underrepresented minorities can “participate in the classroom and not feel isolated.”2 With a critical mass “racial stereo-types lose their force because non-minority students learn there is no ‘minority viewpoint’ but rather a variety of viewpoints among minority students.”3

Even by her own standards, this seems untrue. Stanley Rothman and others in a recent study report that most students and faculty believe educational quality is lowered when large numbers of affirmative action students are on campus.4 Furthermore, ridiculous stereotypes of blacks as intellectually incapable are more likely to be reinforced—among whites, Asians, Hispanics and blacks—when large numbers of lesser-qualified minorities cannot uphold their end in classroom discussions, in the laboratories or on exams. O’Connor’s arguments in behalf of racial preferences in admissions are as spurious as her conclusion—that race preferences to obtain a diverse student body are a “compelling state interest.”


http://www.anthonyflood.com/murrayaaelitewar.htm
Click to expand...


THis is yoour response? A puff piece that begins-“There is a war against the white male, the traditional American working class and middle class, conducted by the elites of labor, the captains of capital, the chiefs of the military and the celebrities of ‘academedia.’”

See his related articles: Affirmative Action and the Nazis, The Case against Affirmative Action, and Who’s to Blame for the Affirmative Action Fiasco?”

Anthony Flood


Certainly no bias was used here in writing this stuff. I asked you for specific policy and you present a OPINION. No wonder you seem lost- Try reading up on the program for yourself. will you?
 
Southern Chicken said:
THis is yoour response? A puff piece that begins-“There is a war against the white male, the traditional American working class and middle class, conducted by the elites of labor, the captains of capital, the chiefs of the military and the celebrities of ‘academedia.’”

See his related articles: Affirmative Action and the Nazis, The Case against Affirmative Action, and Who’s to Blame for the Affirmative Action Fiasco?”

Anthony Flood


Certainly no bias was used here in writing this stuff. I asked you for specific policy and you present a OPINION. No wonder you seem lost- Try reading up on the program for yourself. will you?
Click to expand...

There were also statististics there. they freely admit that less qualified blacks are admitted to reach 'critical mass', and white males pay the price.
There is a war on white males.

you can't ask for statistics and then dismiss them when i give them to you.
 
AssHatZombie said:
There were also statististics there. they freely admit that less qualified blacks are admitted to reach 'critical mass', and white males pay the price.
There is a war on white males.

you can't ask for statistics and then dismiss them when i give them to you.
Click to expand...

I asked for statistic regarding race OVER qualifications;

Lets look at another take---

US Supreme Court upholds affirmative action
By Joseph Kay and John Andrews
25 June 2003
On Monday the United States Supreme Court decided the constitutionality of affirmative action, upholding 5-4 the use of race as a factor to achieve “diversity” in college admissions. In a companion case, the High Court struck down 6-3 an admissions process that automatically granted a preference to applicants from certain minority groups, claiming the specific method employed was too broad and mechanical and consequently violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

In the more important of the two cases, Grutter v. Bollinger, Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion—joined by Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer—upholding the University of Michigan Law School’s practice of considering the race of applicants to insure a “critical mass” of minority students.

“The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” O’Connor wrote. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/affi-j25.shtml
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's right there. On qualifications alone it would be a meager 4% black admitted. they have to PUT RACE OVER QUALIFICATIONS to get to the "critical mass" they desired.

Can you read and comprehend?
Click to expand...

Did you see not my response? THE Supreme court also shot down the admissions process based on minority preference
 
AssHatZombie said:
But they have not shot it down in the workplace yet.
Click to expand...


Do you have Stats on that? Where AA is more involved with race OVER qualifications. I can AGAIN provide you with links that prohibits that.


HERE YOU GO
http:www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm

From link: The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, not are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results…The regulations at 41 CFR 60—2.12(e), 60-2.30, and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring (FOR AZZHAT)and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals
 
Threedee said:
Wow, I didn't know you were a former jet pilot in the Guard, a two-term governor with an MBA, and corporate experience!! I always just took you for a science nerd... :cof1:
Click to expand...
I am. I"m a science nerd and a former Scanning Electron Microscope operator (with EDS) and an MS with corporate experience. :)
 
Southern Chicken said:
Do you have Stats on that? Where AA is more involved with race OVER qualifications. I can AGAIN provide you with links that prohibits that.


HERE YOU GO
http:www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm

From link: The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, not are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results…The regulations at 41 CFR 60—2.12(e), 60-2.30, and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring (FOR AZZHAT)and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals
Click to expand...

they did not overturn the university of michigan case, the one i was referring to.
 
AssHatZombie said:
they did not overturn the university of michigan case, the one i was referring to.
Click to expand...

BUT THEY DID clarify the ruling. Maybe a another news source can help you-


Please try and comprehend this


http://www.cnn.com/2003/fyi/news/06/25/scotus/index.html

QUOTE: The court vote 6-3 to reject a more structured admissions policy at Michigan's undergraduate school. That policy automatically assigned extra points to minorities, which virtually ensured that all qualified minority applicants to the school would be accepted. HOWEVER, The justices ruled that the undergraduate policy violated the Equal Protection Clause because it did not employ the consideration of applicants on their overall individual merit. (CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS AZZHAT) The policy instead used race as the determining factor in whether a student was accepted to the school - a move the Supreme Court saw as going too far in giving minority students preference. The court's decisions effectively uphold affirmative action in university admissions. Affirmative action was designed to help minorities in an effort to make up for the discrimination they faced in the past. An example of its use in the field of education is in the reservation of some college admissions slots for minority students. Without these slots, some minority students might not have been accepted to their university of choice.


Remember our debate is about RACE OVER QUALIFICATIONS, right?
 
Last edited:
Southern Chicken said:
BUT THEY DID clarify the ruling. Maybe a another news source can help you-


Please try and comprehend this


http://www.cnn.com/2003/fyi/news/06/25/scotus/index.html

QUOTE: The court vote 6-3 to reject a more structured admissions policy at Michigan's undergraduate school. That policy automatically assigned extra points to minorities, which virtually ensured that all qualified minority applicants to the school would be accepted. HOWEVER, The justices ruled that the undergraduate policy violated the Equal Protection Clause because it did not employ the consideration of applicants on their overall individual merit. (CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS AZZHAT) The policy instead used race as the determining factor in whether a student was accepted to the school - a move the Supreme Court saw as going too far in giving minority students preference. The court's decisions effectively uphold affirmative action in university admissions. Affirmative action was designed to help minorities in an effort to make up for the discrimination they faced in the past. An example of its use in the field of education is in the reservation of some college admissions slots for minority students. Without these slots, some minority students might not have been accepted to their university of choice.


Remember our debate is about RACE OVER QUALIFICATIONS, right?
Click to expand...

Oh so it became a more nebulous and mysterious policy where nobody can tell what they're doing. nice clarity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top