• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

AZ Tea Party get legalized discrimination bill to pass

Wrangor said:
That you and I agree on almost nothing. So saying that I agree with someone more than RJ isn't a real bold assertion.
Click to expand...

ok..but we do agree about 90% on basketball.
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting we expand AA to include more minorities jh?:willynilly:
 
ONW said:
Are you suggesting we expand AA to include more minorities jh?:willynilly:
Click to expand...

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” - Chief Justice John Roberts
 
Why don't you want the "Asians" included? That's racist.
 
jhmd, how do you suggest we get people to stop discriminating by race? Do people discriminate by race? Do you believe ending AA will end discrimination?

And since you said you'd answer it, go back and read bdz's questions about AA in true military.
 
PhDeac said:
jhmd, how do you suggest we get people to stop discriminating by race? Do people discriminate by race? Do you believe ending AA will end discrimination?

And since you said you'd answer it, go back and read bdz's questions about AA in true military.
Click to expand...

For the posters who think I'm scared to answer in detail:

I answered it. I even used the words "resounding No" so it would be hard to miss. I then explained in detail that the military's long-standing policies have featured discrimination on the bases of race, gender and sexual-orientation (and weight. and height. and disability...). You may not like my answer very much, but there you have it. Today, their policies and procedures do a better job than most to be merit-based, but holding their "long standing practices" up as a model in a thread about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is nothing short of silly.

I won't even bother to repeat my question. If there was an answer to give, I'm sure I would have heard it by now. Does it not give you pause about a particular policy that none of its proponents (including smart, credentialed people like you) can muster a defense to this challenge? That's the dangerous game you play when you hope the second wrong makes it right. What if took the Chief Justice's advice and just stopped discriminating between people on the basis of race (note that my adoption of this position made me "extremely conservative")? That doesn't strike me as an extreme position. It's even more noteworthy that the failure to discriminate on the basis of race is now deemed "conservative" in the extreme. "Congrats" on out-flanking your opponents on this one.

I don't dispute that AA was well-intended at its inception, but the problems come in the implementation of that dangerous practice. Its discrimination against Asians (not just to the benefit of other minority groups, but even in favor of the majority*) makes the flaws of the policy abundantly clear. You often defend AA on the grounds that it provides a course correction against latent discrimination in hiring practices. Let's agree that there is more than enough ambient latent discrimination (where we disagree is the need to add to it) in the marketplace. But putting that difference of opinion aside, how do University admissions policies discriminate against minority applicants, such that an adjustment is necessary? In big public schools (with proud and robust AA policies**), its test scores, transcripts, writing samples and written applications where you can choose whether or not to answer the question of race (or even better, how***). UVa: "...formal interviews are not a part of our evaluation process." Michigan? Nope. Texas? No room at the Inn. Oh why not....USF? Where do I sign up for my mandatory interview in Tampa? UNC uses the common application, which kindly advises that "Answers to the ethnicity question are not required for submission." So I don't have to submit a picture, sit for an interview or even answer the question of race. Where is the human element that needs "correction", again?

* I'm not sure you can find better evidence that AA operates in the manner of the unlawful quota system its defenders insist it isn't than the fact that whites actually have a better chance of admission to schools than Asians. Unless you're going to try to convince me that an intended byproduct of AA was to permit white people to overcome the historical advantages Asians have had in our country, that's a quota system, which makes it illegal, if that still matters.
** The ones where they occasionally don't publish the criteria of exactly how much weight they place on race. Some people don't find this evasive obfuscation particularly reassuring. In any event, LOL @ "Strict scrutiny".
*** A little civil disobedience goes a long way. For example, if the current President of the United States (a native Hawaiian) was applying to college in 2014 and he wanted to resist a University's attempt to discriminate against him because of his mother's skin color (and all of the white privilege she enjoyed as a single mother of limited resources), it seems to me that he would be well within this rights to declare himself a "Pacific Islander" or a "Native American". He's certainly got a case to declare himself an "African-American", albeit not as strong a case as Charlize Theron. You might think this is silly, but this girl isn't laughing.

For the posters who think I answer too much:

Your policy is racist and sucks. See above.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top