Xibit

When you first reference to AA claimed that it was race-based discrimination and then only after having WHITE WOMEN constantly thrown in your face did you acknowledge them... That's clear evidence that you modified your claim and the very fact that you stated how WHITE WOMEN were thrown in "our" face (who is the OUR? You and all the other posters that were attacking AA strictly based on the race-based idea?) is a clear indication that you took the cue to modify your claim from me.

Now the next thing for this group you called "our" is to make sure the implicit race-based claims (i.e. the idea that AA is "taking" opportunities from Whites) are justified, since you want to carry on the same conversation from the old thread. Again, the title of this thread is: SILENCE ON WHITE PREFERENCES.

I'll leave you to choke on the comparisons you're imagining.

The simple point here is the public outrage is NOT over (WHITE) WOMEN when it comes to AA but, rather, the outrage itself (see the title of the last thread) is RACE-BASED disregarding not only the "gender preferences" but the fact that WHITES, e.g., are not having opportunities "taken" from them; WHITE WOMEN (they are not race-less) benefit from AA. Because of that their arguments (I don't give a damn whether it's yours) fall flat.




If AA also includes gender considerations then claiming AA is race-discrimination is not an accurate description. Plain and simple. You did just what others did and only focused on the "race-based" aspect. So your question complicates your own statements.

Conspiculously absent AGAIN is any mention from of WHITE WOMEN or gender-based considerations. You did NOT say "AA should not focus on any particular gender/sex." You failed to mention it. You obviously modified your claim.

Now, since AA includes gender considerations then those opposed to "discrimination" only show how race-based their claims are when there are no (WHITE) MEN ONLY SCHOLARSHIPS and such outrage over what would be called SEXISM or sex/gender-based discrimination. It's as if a number anti-AA Whites are okay with WHITE WOMEN (they're White, too) because it "keeps it in the family." Hmmm...

Enough of that.


Quote me on that. Don't try to frame my argument or, rather, things I've said to fit your how you want to see my position. You know exactly what I stated. And if you felt that I had stated that I "want to use AA"... you wouldn't have mentioned reparations. Get that stuff straight in your head first then come back.


I said that it is incumbent on the government to correct the RACIAL INEQUALITY. I never said nor do I believe that something as anemic as AA even begins to do that. You've never heard me state what I thought AA does or what I really think about AA.

As for CORRECTING the race-based, RACIAL INEQUALITY... Well, by definition, yes. The government sanctioned, participated, allowed, etc. RACE-BASED "THEFT" against African Americans, e.g. So I don't see what's the problem. To correct the RACIAL INEQUALITY and balance the equation... You know what I said:

Whatever value is added/subtracted to one side of the equation must also be added/subtracted to the other side of the equation.

This is real simple math. And, IMO, AA has nothing to do with that. You're obviously have problems following along. I questioned ICE on his "gap will close" comment. That was a different discussion than the one on AA. Again, you know that. That's why you mentioned reparations. You understand the difference.

I argued that those who were against AA couldn't show how AA was "taking" opportunities away from Whites. That's what I argued. I never made any statement about how I wanted to use AA.


Read what you said. Ha! Ha! I guess we can get someone in here to make the argument that Diversity Matters and how Whites benefit from a "critical mass" of other racial/ethnic groups in the whole college experience. lol

And it's your curious logic that made the weird argument that athletic admissions aren't based on athletics. What else are they based on? Unlike AA which is based on a number of selection criteria, athletic admissions are indeed based on one selection criteria: the athlete. The benefits of athletic programs to colleges opens up a whole can of worms you don't won't to deal with.

Funny how you would make that type of an argument to justify athletics but apparently never considered that approach to explaining the benefits of AA. And now that I'm thinking about it...

Gender bias in college admissions | csmonitor.com

No commentary needed. Just the fact that there is concerns and people talking about it strikes of big irony.


This makes even less sense than the previous quote. There was no such claim. There was a clarification: The title is "Silence on White preferences." Said another way: "Silence on preferences Whites benefit from."


Doesn't apply to what? Some comparisons YOU want to draw?
The title is "Silence on White preferences." Said another way: "Silence on preferences Whites benefit from."

AA isn't "race-based." Race is not the defining character of the consideration for AA. The definition basis includes a number of considerations which include veteran status, age, gender and "underrepresented" minority status. So, properly put, AA is BASED on all those things and not any one particular criteria. But, funny how people, including you, only voice their disagreement with what they call "race-based."

Funny how it took you a long time to acknowledge (WHITE) WOMEN. Funny how you made no disclaimer statement announcing how you were against gender-focused AA. Now, the law also specifies no discrimination based on gender but you and other anti-AA people have little to say about that. As noted (and proven), you only modified your position after having that constantly thrown in your face.


That's obviously what you wanted to talk about.

The title is "Silence on White preferences." Said another way: "Silence on preferences Whites benefit from."

You had every opportunity to respond to this thread without alluding to the other. You had every opportunity to treat it as separate from the other but you didn't. Your immediate reaction was:

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I never said AA was racists I said it was discriminatory.

You wanted to talk about what "you never said" WHEN? What "you never said" WHERE?


I rest my case. Now, since you act like you have an issue with a Part 2 discussion, address this thread in the context of my remarks posted here. Not what you think I said on the other thread. Hmmm.....


Hmmm... Now I wonder WHERE you got the idea?


Deal with what I have said and posted here:

It would be nice to see a meritocracy. Too bad one does not exist in these United States. I would hope that those who have an axe to grind regarding AA as they imagine it as "racist", etc. would speak at length and with equal fervor about all preferences, real or perceived.

That's the context for you to consider and respond to. Respond to it or not. That's your choice. Just don't call this Part 2 when it's YOU who want to frame this thread under the misguided notions your formed in the other thread.

Again, you had every opportunity to treat this thread independently from the other. You chose not to do that. I merely obliged you.


My purpose for this thread was to show that there is not (an academic-based) meritocracy and to show how Whites benefit from non-merit based preferences and other considerations. Maybe I edited my post before you saw it but the 3rd quote in my header post gives an example of the other (ostensibly) non-merit considerations.

I posted it in the other thread and reposted it again because it continues to be something people avoid/ignore. Just like in the Hopwood case, because AA is stereotyped as "racial discrimination", people overlook the actual facts.

The AA/college admissions standards debate surrounding the UM case hardly ever spoke to the facts which showed how 46.7% of the students with lower grades and scores who were admitted in the year Jennifer Gratz didn't get admitted were White. No one went after those White students. That, in and of itself, is a White preference - a White privilege.

You don't hear people suggesting that those White students shouldn't have gotten in or any allusions to how they were not "qualified." Apparently their grades/scores didn't "qualify" them... So why the silence?