Are you serious? White women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA.- Nicole

Nicole, “are you serious”? Please reread my statement again. Take as much time as you need…I was pointing out the very thing you seem to think that I missed which was that AA expanded to include 70% of our population. Included in the expanded definition would be women, including white women. The expanded definition has become so ridiculously vast that it has, in essence become exclusionary.

I would far rather that you respond to what I actually say than what you think I may have meant cuz you are scoring an f- in the presumptive department…

Just because someone else mentioned civil service exams and the NYFD, that does NOT mean I did nor that the statement in the post I was responding to did. MY POST was NOT about that and the statement I made still stands true. Your futile attempt to insert them (as well as corporations) into the meaning of my words is just that – futile.

Your statement that “No poster on this thread draws a distinction b/w diversity and affirmative action” is patently untrue. When you FIRST brought up the word in relation to my post by attempting to substitute one for the other (in relation to MY post), I told you that when *I* refer to AA, I am NOT referring to diversity, as the two are not synonymous.

Furthermore, it just may be that no other poster made that distinction because A) that distinction has at no time been under discussion on this thread (ya think?) and, B)maybe no one else is obtuse enough to think they are synonymous.

Of course, I don’t think you are obtuse enough to think they are synonymous either. Otherwise why would it be so important to you to insist that my choice of one term actually means the other when clearly I did not use it?

So now you insist that the first time the word ‘diversity’ is used in relation to MY post, which is when YOU attempted to replace it for my choice of words, that at that moment it is TOOOO LATE for me to make distinctions. Are you kidding??

So you get to replace any word I use with the word of your choice (even though it does not mean the same thing), and at that very moment in time, when you chose to make the replacement in my words, it is officially TOO LATE for me to make any distinctions. You ARE funny!

Oh, by the way..when I said ‘government’, I did not mean ‘cheese’. And when I used the word ‘quote’, I was not referring to the “Bee Gees’. Also, for me, the word ‘action’ is not equivalent to the word ‘bunions’.

I do so hope I have clarified myself in a timely enough fashion for you on those particular words.

I’m just not sure how I’m going to find the time to make all of the other possible “distinctions” I may need to make in case you decide to substitute any more of my words. Especially since at the time of your ‘decision’ it is apparently TOO LATE for me to clarify your adjustments to my words.

Oh, and as to what started this: MY original statement, as I chose to word it, oddly enough is STILL true. Which, I suppose, is why you have led me on this wild goose chase to begin with.

First of all, one cannot look at AA merely in terms of its impact upon black people because it encompasses a far wider reach of minority groups (When a wealthy Hispanic person who grew up in Timbuktu is accorded benefits over a poor white kid from Appalachia, there’s a problem with the width and breadth of the bloated notion of AA that we have ended up with).

Second, one cannot evaluate AA merely in terms of a positive effect on blacks because AA has been enormously divisive in this country, has cost untold billions of dollars that have been taken from hard working taxpayers, and has unfairly impacted segments of our society.

Oh? Has it ever been value-neutral, in your experience? I don’t think so, and that’s going back far before AA.

And if that is the goal, why is abolishing affirmative action the best means to accomplish that? Doesn’t making more black people middle-class bring us closer to a color-blind society, because one then will live and work with colleagues of different races? (tvd)

YES! On any Civil Service exam where everyone is subject to the same standards – there race IS of neutral value.

Er, because black admissions went up following the implementation of AA (and this is nationwide, not just in CA) (tvd)

Black admissions did go up, but graduation rates went sharply down. Even in NYC where AA was bolstered by a failed and now defunct policy called “open admissions,” black graduatrion rates declined sharply after the advent of those policies.

Er, because black admissions went up following the implementation of AA (and this is nationwide, not just in CA)

Substantially more black folks were poor at the beginning of that period (just post-reconstruction). It’s a flawed comparison–like comparing growth rates in a developing company to that of a mature company. Further, you might look at the inflation-adjusted income of blacks pre- and during affirmative action, which would be a much better gauge.

“What about the notion that blacks would not be able to get into colleges and universities without affirmative action? After group preferences and quotas were banned in California’s state universities, the number of black students in the University of California system has risen.”

I wasn’t making the argument that blacks couldn’t get into colleges without affirmative action. I’m making the argument that it’s done more good than harm, and those results are impossible to deny on their face.

“What about the notion that blacks would not be able to get into colleges and universities without affirmative action? After group preferences and quotas were banned in California’s state universities, the number of black students in the University of California system has risen.” –Dr. Thomas Sowell

Sure, government alone can’t do that–but why, then, did affirmative action directly track the rise of the black middle class? Did black people suddenly become more personally responsible in the 60s-00s?

I could get behind that.

All AA guarantees is the dampening of the effort=reward formula, ultimately hurting the very goal it claims to champion.

Post 79 refers to a system U of M doesn’t use any more.

The post has included comments referring to civil service exams and the NYFD, as well as discussion of AA in business–the comments are not limited to universities, and it is inaccurate to say the post has been wholly about universities.

#93:

No poster on this thread draws a distinction b/w diversity and affirmative action–in fact, some of the comments play fast and loose with the distinction (see #59), so you introducing it late in the day doesn’t help any of your arguments.

As for the admit/hires distinction, fine. Way to clarify your original point. Kudos.

#94:

“Here’s the problem with that – race/ethnicity/gender should ALL be value-neutral.”

Oh? Has it ever been value-neutral, in your experience? I don’t think so, and that’s going back far before AA.

And if that is the goal, why is abolishing affirmative action the best means to accomplish that? Doesn’t making more black people middle-class bring us closer to a color-blind society, because one then will live and work with colleagues of different races?

“I don’t see a problem with that.”

Here’s the problem with that – race/ethnicity/gender should ALL be value-neutral.

To argue that a black person’s race should be valued “positive” (more than other races) rationalizes the reverse as well, because all such policies are arbitrary and capricious.

You say “This is referring to AA generally–the “in universities” qualifier was not added until further down”.

What are you talking about? This thread is ABOUT AA in universities! The statements I made (until my response to you, in which YOU changed the subject) was about AA in universities and was in response to posts about AA in universities.

Again, attempting to change my words and the context in which I made them is a cheap shot and proves nothing.

In addition, see the link on post 79. This is NOT a “race-plus” basis.