President Bush has apparently come out in favor of affirmative access as practiced in Texas when he was governor as an alternative to affirmative action as currently described by the federal law.

How does he measure the outcome without being accused of using quotas?

If you don't measure outcomes, can the process work?

Is affirmative access simply affirmative action lite?

I didn't realize he was speaking of "access." But why was he coming out speaking about a topic going before the supreme court at all. His administration can put forth an argument, as it's supposed to do, but should he be talking like that? I don't think so and he sounds terrible when he does speak. It makes me turn off the radio.

Four moderate Republican Senators--Spector, Collins, Snowe, and Chafee--came out urging Bush not to take the step he did today of arguing against the University of Michigan's admissions process. He, however, has labeled Michigan's practices "quotas," though Michigan's former president, Lee Bollinger, now the president of Columbia University, said that Bush's characterization was quite wrong.

So, despite the calls of Hispanic groups (it was a foregone conclusion that Black lawmakers and organizations would ask him not to do what he did) who he claims to want to bring into the Republican fold, he gave his speech and is supporting the three white plaintiffs. Supposedly his conservative base is very happy. As with the Pickering situation, the Trent Lott debacle did not make a dent in Bush/Rove's plans. They definitely stick to their political schemes, no matter how much the surrounding contexts shift and change.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
They definitely stick to their political schemes, no matter how much the surrounding contexts shift and change.

---

Well, I probably wouldn't care what Dubya has to say on the matter - I would want to wait until it gets picked up and thrown around by trustworthy minds.

A criticism of affirmative access (automatic eligibility of the top 10% academically of every school in a state to go to the state college) is that it could resegregate high schools by encouraging students to seek out academically less challeging schools.

It may not affect private institutions at all.

It would not necessarily encourage more spending on underfunded elementary and high schools in poorer neighborhoods.

That funding disparity is the starting point for achieving equal opportunity.

So who do we trust most on issues of race? Condi Rice, or a bunch of honkies like Spector, Collins, Snowe, and Chafee?

Rice Helped Shape Bush's Decision

Thank goodness the Democrats are out there to keep us all honest.

Georgia Democrats Use Confederate Battle Flag to Win Election

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
So who do we trust most on issues of race? Condi Rice, or a bunch of honkies like Spector, Collins, Snowe, and Chafee?

---

Interesting point, there, that only black people can have a valid opinion regarding affirmative action. If that's the case, then what about Colin Powell, who, after all, supports affirmative action and has gone so far as to admit that affirmative action helped him get where he is today.

Goodness, Dubya's double-speak here is almost, um, Clintonian. But as always with W's "compassionate conservatism", minorities are the ones getting the lip service, while the conservative ideologues are getting the goods.

William, in the south, especially in state and local elections, a democrat really isn't a democrat. Be careful of posting that, because these "democrats" are really republicans.

[quote]Originally posted by Aubie in Bham:
William, in the south, especially in state and local elections, a democrat really isn't a democrat. Be careful of posting that, because these "democrats" are really republicans.

---

This guy ran as a Democrat. In the Georgia legislature he allied with the Democrat majority. So he is a Democrat, no matter how inconvenient the fact might be. If he is so un-Democratic, why aren't national Democrats speaking out against him and his exploitation of this divisive issue?

First, the topic at hand:
Jay Leno: "The Bush administration says it will file a brief with the Supreme Court over the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy, saying it's wrong to determine acceptance based on race. Bush said acceptance should be based on fair things like what private school you went to, who's your dad, how much money you gave to the alumni fund."

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
why aren't national Democrats speaking out against him and his exploitation of this divisive issue?

---

Good question -- the Dems are tongue-tied trying to be the party of both NASCAR and MLK Jr. -- well, at least Dick Gephardt had the cojones last week to say the CSA banner / rebel battle flag had no place in Missouri.

As for this Georgia politician, a handful of his Dem colleagues defected to the GOP after the Nov elections. Hopefully he'll do the same thing -- good riddance.

[ January 17, 2003: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
First, the topic at hand:
Jay Leno: "The Bush administration says it will file a brief with the Supreme Court over the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy, saying it's wrong to determine acceptance based on race. Bush said acceptance should be based on fair things like what private school you went to, who's your dad, how much money you gave to the alumni fund."

---

I'm sure nobody on The Tonight Show staff got a break because of who they know or where they went to school.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
He [BUSH], however, has labeled Michigan's practices "quotas," though Michigan's former president, Lee Bollinger, now the president of Columbia University, said that Bush's characterization was quite wrong.

---

So Mr. Bollinger objects to having a policy he supports characterized by a politically unpopular label? Imagine that.

"He [DASCHLE], however, has labeled President Bush's economic policies "tax cuts for the wealthy," though President Bush said that Daschle's characterization was quite wrong." So case closed!

While I am a firm advocate of affirmative action, I do feel that the practices and University of Miachigan need to be reconsidered and altered, still allowing race as a criterion, but maybe not placing so much weight on it. As an african-american I would be lying if I said that I never benifitted from affirmative action, but I will say that I have always had to perform well above the level of my counterparts that lack the same amount of melanin (not sure if I spelled that word right) as I do. Although the GOP may be overt about their reacism, the Dems say they are for us but constantly ignore us and never adress our issues, rather just using us for our votes and money. Like my best friend always says, "Republican or Democrat, you still get screwed, but at least the Democrats will use a condom."

Da Kid.

I also know that many white people and people of other minorities will often try to sympathize and empathize, in some cases, with the plight of african americans, but they will never understand and will never know the struggle that we face day-to-day.

I do though feel that G-Dub, as I have been known to call him, has really blown it this time. He already has a large constituency (mainly Dems) against the war, so now he chooses to piss off those even in his own party (Hispanics mainly) with his stance on affirmative action, to which many latinos in the GOP have been recipients of. Thanks G-Dub, thanks for sealing in your fate, only serving one term.

Da Kid.

I think there is little arguement that individuals should be judged by the "content of their character".

But what happens when some individuals choose to judge others not based on the content of their character but based on the color of their skin?

We are about to go to war to "liberate" a people who are oppressed by a despotic leader. Should we be idle while any individual in this country oppresses a fellow citizen, regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc.?

Our president certainly doesn't seem to propose tolerating either status quo. But reasonable people disagree with him about the solutions he proposes in either case.

There should be an objective way of measuring whether the "10%" solution, or any other, actually works. How does that happen other than by measuring outcomes (i.e. quotas)?

I like George Will's Univ. of Michigan questionnaire, awarding each applicant 10 points for each diversity-enhancing answer (150 points being a perfect Diversity Quotient):

1. The Supreme Court's principal function is (a) to wield the Constitution as a living document to right all wrongs ( to protect the Second Amendment.

2. Do you wish to enroll in UM's ROTC program?

3. U.S. policy toward Iraq should be: (a) give peace a chance ( pave it.

4. The UM Wolverines athletic budget ($54 million) (a) is too small ( should be contributed to Greenpeace.

5. True or False: Ohio State is part of the axis of evil.

6. Were you home schooled?

7. Do you watch Fox News Channel?

8. America's coolest anchorman is (a) Tom Brokaw ( Dan Rather © Peter Jennings (d) Brit Hume.

9. Do you read National Review while listening to Rush Limbaugh?

10. Can you tell the difference between The New York Times front page and its editorial page?

11. The most socially beneficial development in America in the last three decades was (a) Roe vs. Wade ( the University of Michigan speech code © ESPN.

12. America's worst failing is (a) racism ( sexism © inequality (d) imperialism (e) respect for the United Nations.

13. Given a choice, would you own (a) an environmentally friendly hybrid car? ( a Ford F-150 pickup truck?

14. Who is the more plausible president: (a) Martin Sheen of "The West Wing"? ( John Edwards of North Carolina? © Any of the Dixie Chicks?

15. The Miller Lite ad in which the "tastes great" woman and the "less filling" woman duke it out in a bodice-ripping cat fight is (a) fascistic phallocentrism ( a hoot.

Dear applicant, if your answers optimize your Diversity Quotient (b, yes, b, a, true, yes, yes, who are those first three guys?, yes, you're kidding -- right?, c, e, b, c, , well, then: Welcome to Ann Arbor, you wonderful addition to Wolverine diversity.

M E L A N I N is.....correct!

- - - - -

I have never, by virtue of circumstances, benefitted by affirmative action. Nevertheless, I believe in an America that strives to right by its citizens whose generations have suffered the injustices of the slavery legacies.

Sportinlife, sportinlife!! Certainly, you are not asking for logic, are you, buddy?!?!?

Please, your sake, and ours, PLEASE!?!?!?

- - - - -

Isn't it interesting, as they say, that because Dubya wants something from Iraq, he is willing to go so far as to cry for "liberation" of their people?

Now, THAT's rocket science.

[ January 27, 2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

I thought Nicholas Krisof's editorial \"A Boy and his Benefits\" brought home the inherent contradictions and difficulties surrounding this issue.

We will eventually have to eliminate discrimination in all forms and at all levels, but as long as each one tries to eliminate it selectively, the controversy and contradictions will continue.

Many affirmative action programs in use today were developed twenty to thirty years ago. In that time we have seen the emergence of a solid black middle class. By the same token, we've come to realize there are pockets of white poverty in America that are shocking. Is a black teenager raised in a middle-class, suburban community more disadvantaged than a profoundly poor white teenager in Appalachia? As a Latino, I find the concept of affirmative action to be offensive pandering by whites who all too often have guilty consciences about their own personal interactions with minorities. Of course, on this Board that is in and of itself a minority viewpoint.

The University of Michigan gives points for white kids from poor families too, as well as to those from "underrepresented areas", i.e. the Upper Peninsula in Michigan.

I couldn't find a better thread to put this in, so I bumped this one up.

This story cracks me up for two reasons that I'll bold below. Whites Only scholarship stirs RI college: Yes, the ACLU, those notorious commie-pinko-libs (tm PF) defended this guy.

Jason Mattera, short version: Even though I got a scholarship based solely on me being a Latino, and I would fail our picture litmus test, I see nothing wrong with engaging in race-baiting on behalf of a group that has a sizeable advantage in college admissions based solely on their skin color.

And poor little Jamie Pattison, what with war, disease, famine and poverty rampant in the world, it's nice to know that "people getting handouts" is her top priority.

[ March 20, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Too bad everyone got so outraged. They could have squashed this group (who are shit stirers of the fist order) by simply ignoring them. It's really not that big a deal. Now, the complaints, and the ridiculous attempt to freeze their money, has gotten them national attention, which is just what they wanted in the first place.

"The scholarship was criticized by the state Republican Party and Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee. In a Feb. 17 letter to Mattera, Gillespie said the scholarship conveys a "message of exclusion" that doesn't represent the party's values. He suspended the group's right to use the party's symbols."

You're right, they're just publicity whores, but I just loved the fact that a non-white guy who got in to that school because of a scholarship based on his race was railing against the very thing that allowed him to be there in the first place.

Why focus on race-based scholarships when there are far more based on national origin, religion, sports, etc. Google "Polish scholarship" and see how many you get. So someone wants to give scholarships for black or latino kids--big deal. Scholarships are exclusionary by nature. There are scholarships for Mormons, for Catholics, for frats, for jugglers, for pretty much everything.

He acts like scholarships for black kids are this unique and particularly awful, awful, oh-so-unfair thing that we must all pay attention to. I could do with the money from a Polish scholarship or from one given to women who write the winning essay on Emily Dickinson or something. Writing an essay about white pride is just, well, it's not a big deal at all. Anyway, he wanted attention and he got it.

I'm up late studing all these Reconstruction cases. So sad that, almost 140 years later, people can't find better ways to tackle this issue.

[ March 21, 2004, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]