Affirmative Action is Racist

[Zach]

-racism

noun

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

read the whole thing or don't read it at all
____________________

What is affirmative action?

Affirmative action is the distribution of a selective handicap to certain minorities that allows members of the given minority an advantage over others. An example would be that a black man is more likely to get into a given college than a white man with the same grades, test scores, and extra-curricular activities. Affirmative action applies only to certain races - or more specifically, certain minorities. An asian, for example, would not receive the benefits of affirmative action.
____________________

Affirmative action is selective.

Affirmative action is not blind. Members of minorities such as jews or asians do not receive the benefits of affirmative action. This is because jews and asians are not underrepresented in colleges and society in general; the percentage of jews and asians in college is normal in relative to the total number of the respective race/ethnicity.
____________________

Selective affirmative action is racist.

Since affirmative action is selective, it does not have the interest of minorities in general in mind. It singles out certain minorities, usually blacks and hispanics, and labels them as beneficiaries of its deeds. One of the reasons affirmative action is viewed in a positive light is because minorities are perceived to have a disadvantage in a predominantly caucasian society. However, selective affirmative action does not operate on this sentiment, but rather on the sentiment that certain minorities are disadvantaged in a society of the majority - but not all. This begs the question: why are certain minorities considered disadvantaged, and therefore worthy of handicap? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that certain minorities are somehow worse off than others. This is not true. All minority groups in America began as a small group of immigrants at the bottom of the ladder. For example, Chinese immigrants built the transcontinental railroad. Every immigrant of every nationality has by and large been treated the same by society (though not necessarily by the individual, as some are ignorant or prejudiced). The exception to this rule is the black population. Black people were enslaved and brought to America against their will, forced to work on plantations without wages. However, slavery has been abolished for almost 300 years and other minority groups (more on this later) have integrated into society successfully in far less time. There is no longer a such thing as a disadvantaged minority in America, nor in most any western country.
____________________

Minorities that do not benefit from affirmative action can and have reached success and assimilated under tougher conditions than minorities who have not.

Lets look at two examples. My grandmother and grandfather, for example, are holocaust survivors. They came to America without a word of English. My grandfather took driving lessons and became a cab driver. After learning some English he came into ownership of a laundromat and met modest success as an entrepreneur. Their children - my father and my aunt - became an anesthesiologist and a teacher, respectively. Becoming a medical doctor is no small achievement, and yet it took only one generation after the arrival of the supposedly disadvantaged minority to reach success. Many of the progeny of holocaust survivors have reached similar success; this story is not simply anecdotal.This was in the space of a few decades, a minute portion of time compared to three centuries african americans have had to meet success. And some have - evidence that no minority is inherently inferior to any other minority, nor the majority. However, it holds true that african americans (and hispanics) have not seen the same success as other minorities. The above evidence is not anecdotal; similar things have happened many times. During World War II many japanese - an ethnicity within the term 'asian' - were forced into internment camps. This is because people suspected them of conspiracy, plotting, etc. However, japanese people, along with asians in general, have since erased their negative image and have become successful in society.
____________________

Affirmative Action is Racist to the minorities is benefits.

Affirmative action is patronizing to those it benefits. It operates on the pretense that certain races are at a disadvantage - a nice way of saying inferior - and need a leg up.
____________________

Affirmative action is racist to those it does not help.

Affirmative action helps only certain people. It discriminates and goes out of its way to make sure that not everybody is treated equally, even though it purports to operate on the pretense that everybody is equal. "Everbody is equal, but some are more equal than others."
____________________

You've stated that no minority is at a disadvantage, but graduation rates beg to differ. What's your explanation?

It is a part of the cultures of certain ethnicities to place less value in education; and in other cultures, to place much value in education. This is a conclusion I have drawn based on facts, but it cannot be proven. My grandparents drilled the importance of education into the brains of my father and aunt, and they met success. The converse - those who don't value education don't meet success - is something that I cannot provide further evidence for, besides saying it just makes plain sense. No race is at a disadvantage and no race is superior. The deciding factor is individual effort.
____________________

Affirmative action supports a culture's unwillingness to make an effort and put value in education. What incentive is there to make an effort when society has it predetermined that you do not have to make the effort? Affirmative action ensures that the problem it is supposed to be solving continues to exist.
____________________

Am I racist?

Yes, but so are you. Even if you're the Dalai Lama. Everybody makes judgements based on race. However, most people do not make extreme judgements based on race, but only little ones. Such is human nature.
____________________

Political Correctness be damned.

I don't care about being politically correct, you're a big boy. Besides political correctness is vague term used as automatic, un-quesionable justification for non-sensical attitudes like the one behind affirmative action. It serves only to blind people from true correctness, and to censor discussions such as this one.
____________________

Thank you for reading.

 

[lati0s]

I agree that using race as qualification to select people who are otherwise less qualified is racist, however I also believe that when selecting people to be admitted to a college it is alright to take factors such as economic background into account (which will likely increase the number of minorities because minorities like blacks and hispanics are more liklely than is average to be in s poor economic situation).

 

[MrIndigo]

Affirmative action can also cause conflicts with other "fundamental" rights. For instance, we had a student union election (i.e. elections to get the board that represents all students' interests, so democracy is pretty important), and they instituted an affirmative action policy one year that stated one woman HAD to be elected to the board. Three women ran, one was excluded because she did not nominate correctly, and the other withdrew before the election.

The last woman was then unopposed and was automatically put onto the board, removing any democracy for that role at all. Furthermore, the only girls who ran were simply double-ups from the other major parties in the election, so they were essentially puppet runs for the less competitive role intended to be a puppet for the primary candidate of each party and secure additional seats without effort.


All in all, though, I don't oppose affirmative action because of any reverse-discrimination involved being morally reprehensible. I oppose it because IT NEVER WORKS. For instance, there is a program here that grants a flat rank bonus to Aboriginal students' final high school marks, allowing them to get into better university courses and the like; it also has a financial bursary welfare benefit thing to help with living expenses at university. However, I know a number of people who got that bonus, and they are all white, upper-middle class; some of them are even rednecks. The reason is because it doesn't assess students effectively (It's just a thing you declare, and it counts if you are 1/8 Aboriginal, which is a joke even if it is effectively policed).

Furthermore, the intention for this bonus is to offset the low density of Aboriginal students in high-cutoff courses due to their social and economic disadvantages, which is fine. The problem is that the majority of Aboriginal students who actually make it through high school are generally driven and intelligent and come from the same sort of economic and social environment as their cohort; they're not the ones who need the help. The money and effort should go towards fixing up the social and economic situations at an early age to actually encourage more high school completion in the first place.


EDIT: Another pertinent, but not exactly related point is that there are several definitions of 'racism' in common use. There is an academic definition, which is "making a judgment between people on the basis of their race"; this would include, for instance, selective screening for Sickle Cell Anemia, a disease that affects African-Americans at a much, much higher rate than Anglo-Americans. Another definition is "unfairly repressing or restricting rights of a person or persons on the basis of a belief that their ethnicity is weaker/worse than another's" (where unfairly means where their race is not directly relevant). This is the one that society at large generally considers to be bad/illegal.

The thing is, people often get these two quite different definitions mixed together, so then making factual decisions about a person's race based on factual information, e.g. "That hispanic man is only 33% as likely to be at university compared to a white man of the same age", is considered bad; essentially, they extend the badness to cover any acknowledgement of the existence of race.

The other thing that annoys me is the issue of "racist" jokes and slurs. Racism is a state of mind; it is about what one believes. You can make a joke about race without being a ("bad" definition) racist, and the use of racial slurs does not automatically make you a racist. Offending a person of a different race does not make you a racist. You cannot be "accidentally" racist (although you can be subconsciously racist).

Essentially, one's behaviour does not define their racism, their belief does. One's behaviour can be used to make judgments about what the belief is, but they do not necessarily define each other. You can have people who believe racist things, but do not act it; You can have people who do things that make them look racist, but they do not have racist beliefs.

 

[Zystral]

^ When did sexism come into this?

Although the whole point of "Affirmative Action" defeats the point of equality, as you said.
I think the stereotype that minorities are generally inferior and therefore need support comes from such old times, when the black people were slaves etc. where they really would have needed such support.
Of course, such times have passed.

However, regarding academics, I think the system is flawed as well.
I went to an interview for this fancy private school. Half the people in the waiting room were of either black/west-asian origin.
If they had the ability to progress to such a stage, I'm sure they'd be able to pay for it as well.
And how many caucasian people in the room? 5. Out of about 30. How many south-asians? 4 including myself.
The races that are thought to be better-off were in less abundance than the ones though to be worse off. How times have changed.
Anything to do with academics MUST be based purely on the student's intellectual prowess. Hell, if I marked an entry exam and someone got 0/100, but they gave good arguments and reasoning, I'd let them in - they're a good thinker, regardless of their race or status.

The world has evolved. Any stereotypes linked to race should be shrugged off but sadly the world is too ignorant to understand.

 

[MrIndigo]

^ When did sexism come into this?

Affirmative action is a policy that can be implemented against qualities other than race; the chauvinism one was just a convenient anecdotal example I had.

Although the whole point of "Affirmative Action" defeats the point of equality, as you said.
I think the stereotype that minorities are generally inferior and therefore need support comes from such old times, when the black people were slaves etc. where they really would have needed such support.
Of course, such times have passed.

However, regarding academics, I think the system is flawed as well.
I went to an interview for this fancy private school. Half the people in the waiting room were of either black/west-asian origin.
If they had the ability to progress to such a stage, I'm sure they'd be able to pay for it as well.
And how many caucasian people in the room? 5. Out of about 30. How many south-asians? 4 including myself.
The races that are thought to be better-off were in less abundance than the ones though to be worse off. How times have changed.
Anything to do with academics MUST be based purely on the student's intellectual prowess. Hell, if I marked an entry exam and someone got 0/100, but they gave good arguments and reasoning, I'd let them in - they're a good thinker, regardless of their race or status.

The world has evolved. Any stereotypes linked to race should be shrugged off but sadly the world is too ignorant to understand.

In regards to racial groups in college:

http://www.imagebath.com/donkeylips/college/

One in two asians have a degree.

One in three whites have a degree.

One in six blacks have a degree.

One in nine Hispanics have a degree.

These statistics are taken from the US populations, so they're slanted in terms of population density (e.g. if you had 9000 Hispanics and 3000 Caucasions, the same numbers of each would have a Bachelors degree, 1000 each; It's probably the other way around, though, I'd have to look up the percentage demographic distributions of the USA).

 

[billymills]

I'll say I agree in part. Affirmative action isn't great, but sometimes it is necessary. Just look at sports teams: women get a whole team all to themselves, yet are allowed to play on men's teams at times as well. That's hardly fair is it?

Point is, it doesn't have to be fair. If the women are allowed to play on men's teams, the men will play anyway. Doesn't quite work on the reverse.

Also, I think you're making a blanket statement that racism is bad, which isn't always true.

 

[cim]

Personally, I think that using race rather than socioeconomic status is an overly simplified measure of what affirmative action supporters want. True diversity doesn't come from people who look different.

 

[Zach]

I'll say I agree in part. Affirmative action isn't great, but sometimes it is necessary. Just look at sports teams: women get a whole team all to themselves, yet are allowed to play on men's teams at times as well. That's hardly fair is it?

Point is, it doesn't have to be fair. If the women are allowed to play on men's teams, the men will play anyway. Doesn't quite work on the reverse.

Also, I think you're making a blanket statement that racism is bad, which isn't always true.

I'm not so sure racism is always bad. I mean I kind of lean towards supporting racial profiling

 

[cim]

I'm not so sure racism is always bad. I mean I kind of lean towards supporting racial profiling

So you only like racism when it benefits you?

Besides, you're making your case with the implicit assumption that everyone thinks all racism is bad (hence why you said "racist", which is obvious, rather than "unfair", which is slightly less so). If you don't actually believe it, you make it sound like you just don't want any disadvantages for yourself, rather than an end to discrimination based on where one's distant relatives were from.

So basically, you're putting on a progressive face when you just want the racism bent your way.

 

[Zach]

Very feisty attacks their sir

So you only like racism when it benefits you?

No, only when it benefits everybody. Or, only when it does not harm anybody.

Besides, you're making your case with the implicit assumption that everyone thinks all racism is bad (hence why you said "racist", which is obvious, rather than "unfair", which is slightly less so). If you don't actually believe it, you make it sound like you just don't want any disadvantages for yourself, rather than an end to discrimination based on where one's distant relatives were from.

There are different kinds of racism, and the demonstration of racism can have no effect or far reaching effects. Affirmative action is racism that effects everybody; the extensive screening of a muslim affects only the muslim, only for a short period of time, and only in minor way. I support racism when it makes sense to be racist, and it makes sense in that case because more terrorist attacks are caused by muslims more often than by other groups.

So basically, you're putting on a progressive face when you just want the racism bent your way.

I'm pretty sure nothing I've said would be viewed as progressive lol, seeing how AA is viewed as progressive, and racial profiling is certainly not. I guess you could say being anti-AA is progressive in a way because its a renegade view point but when I'm putting on that 'progressive face' I am not looking for racism to benefit me, but to harm no one. With racial profiling I'm not being progressive and I'm looking for racism to benefit the general populace, not just me.

 

[hobo bob]

-racism


noun

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

____________________

Am I racist?

Yes, but so are you. Even if you're the Dalai Lama. Everybody makes judgements based on race. However, most people do not make extreme judgements based on race, but only little ones. Such is human nature.

Speak for yourself, I am not racist. I do not believe that "a particular race is superior to others".

I think the word you are looking for is prejudice

Prejudice

noun

-any preconcieved opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable

(taken from dictionary.com)

--------------------------------------------------

When you meet someone for the first time you always pre-judge them; it is human nature. You may think someone is mean, shy, antisocial, etc. from thier appearance. Once you get to know these people you can confirm or deny these opinions, but if you hold a certain opinion on someone just because of thier skin color, regardless of character, then you are racist.

 

[cantab]

Minor nitpick: In the section "Selective affirmative action is racist", Native Americans were not mentioned in the discussion of how various ethnic groups made their way to the USA.

the extensive screening of a muslim affects only the muslim, only for a short period of time, and only in minor way. I support racism when it makes sense to be racist, and it makes sense in that case because more terrorist attacks are caused by muslims more often than by other groups.

We've had things like that before. The 'sus laws' in the 1980s, that were used to harrass black people. Its abuse was reckoned to have caused major riots, and the law was repealed, replaced by laws that demanded the police have reasonable suspicion, beyond racial profiling.
Start harassing those of Arab appearance when they're flying, or anywhere else, and we will only anger their community. The terrorist groups will adapt, using those NOT of such appearance, or abandoning attacking flights altogether in favour of buses and trains. We can't even hope to screen everyone of Arab appearance who boards the New York Subway or the London Underground.

 

[SSBM roy]

Not that along ago there was a thread here whining about the nefarious feminist conspiracy to subjugate men. Now I am informed that black people only have a bad lot in life because they're too lazy to learn anything. Can someone get Deck Knight to pen a screed about the oppression of Christianity at the hands of secular humanism and call it a trifecta?

Fellow people of a liberal persuasion, don't assume that opposition to affirmative action is based on appeals to progressive values. It's as much a part of a reactionary white racial agenda as demagoguery about welfare queens, no matter how much it's dressed up in platitudes about political correctness to appear hip and edgy.

 

[God.]

However, slavery has been abolished for almost 300 years and other minority groups (more on this later) have integrated into society successfully in far less time.

well for one your math seems to be interesting. also considering that jim crow laws extended into the NINETEEN SIXTIES slavery being abolished is largely irrelevant.

the idea behind affirmative action isn't that minorities need extra 'help' because they are less skilled. it is a recognition that prior ACTIVE oppression has caused a significant portion of minorities to fall into the lower classes, and as we all know class mobility is terrible in more right-wing countries such as the us. you cannot compare an african american or hispanic individual with european immigrants for reasons i should hope are obvious. even comparisons to asian immigrants are a bit silly considering reasons for immigration have a LOT to do with generational mobility moving forward.

anyway i'm not even a big fan of racial affirmative action. the fact that upper-middle class individuals can benefit from affirmative action is ludicrous. if more time and energy were put into eradicating poverty i don't even think it would be an issue for much longer. i suppose you can say it's better than nothing though. it at least represents a trend of not trivializing the complaints and hardships of minorities(which is a trend political correctness in general represents, which is why it is a good thing and a sign of a more civil society)

 

[cim]

No, only when it benefits everybody. Or, only when it does not harm anybody.

Racial profiling hurts no one, of course.

The whole basis of everything in my post was that you were against affirmative action but for racial profiling.

 

[cantab]

Fellow people of a liberal persuasion, don't assume that opposition to affirmative action is based on appeals to progressive values. It's as much a part of a reactionary white racial agenda as demagoguery about welfare queens, no matter how much it's dressed up in platitudes about political correctness to appear hip and edgy.

Opposition to 'affirmative action' is opposition to racism, because affirmative action IS racism.

Preferential treatment of those from disadvantaged social backgrounds is I feel acceptable. Essentially, it should be to redress the fact that two people of equal potential and character may obtain different results in objective tests due to different teaching. But it should then be based on ACTUAL social background. Factors like parental income, what school one attended, maybe even location of residence. Not on race (or gender for that matter.)

Favouring those of certain races will have a number of negative affects. Firstly, it may result in members of the favoured group getting positions they are not fit, or less fit, for. This is obviously a major issue for businesses, who will be most competitive if they hire the best people who will work for the salary they offer.
Secondly, it discriminates against those not of the favoured group.
Thirdly, and most seriously, it promotes resentment of the favoured group by other groups. How would you feel if you didn't get a job or a college place because of an 'affirmative action' policy giving it to someone else. (Most people here I expect will say they would direct their displeasure at those who instigated the policy, but what one says one would feel isn't what one would actually feel, and Smogonites are probably of above-average intelligence compared to the general population.)

As far as I know, few in the UK would seriously advocate racial quotas or preferential treatment. That said, there are various organisations and programmes only open to those of certain background. There are also targeted marketing campaigns, for example for police recruitment.

 

[billymills]

Racial profiling hurts no one, of course.

The whole basis of everything in my post was that you were against affirmative action but for racial profiling.

It doesn't matter if it hurts someone, as long as the positives outweigh the negatives. Racial profiling is situational, at times it's useful, but at others it will antagonise more than anything. I don't think you should be "for" or "against" either.

 

[Slyguy46]

I can kinda agree here, if only through an example I know. One of my friends got a perfect 2400 on the SATs, is the Captain of my schools Fencing Team, and has a great GPA. He got deferred from MIT. Why? Most likely, because he's Asian, and Asians make up 23.4% of MIT's current class.

Is because of race? I have to believe so.

 

[MrIndigo]

I can kinda agree here, if only through an example I know. One of my friends got a perfect 2400 on the SATs, is the Captain of my schools Fencing Team, and has a great GPA. He got deferred from MIT. Why? Most likely, because he's Asian, and Asians make up 23.4% of MIT's current class.

Is because of race? I have to believe so.

The top high school in my state (by a wide statistical margin, and has been like this for the past decade or more) is 97% Asian.*

This is not because they select them out by race, but simply because the testing processes to apply to this high school (and selective high schools in general) is geared heavily towards rote learning and drilled practices, both of which Asian people are either genetically (I've seen no studies suggesting it either for or against this) or culturally predisposed to. Also, there is a cultural aspect in that Asian parents are more likely to push their child to succeed, and this is understandable. The same is true of Indian families, and it has arisen because of the phenomenal populations of these two regions. When you are one of 2 million students in your year grade, you need to be dedicating your life to being the brightest of the brightest just to have a chance to be noticed.

It's only natural, then, that in lower populated Western countries, this leads to an inflated success at early ages.

To relate back to your specific point; it is unlikely that they are selecting students on the basis of their race, they have no incentive to do that. If you have an unusually low or unusually high percentage of a particular ethnic group, it will be because their selection formula incorporates some nondeliberate systematic bias. For example, a school with a low Asian demographic may have a bias towards the outgoing and creative and against the introverted and bookish. Since many high-school age Asians fall into the latter category because of the dedication and study culture, it would make the university appear to be deliberately excluding Asians when they're trying to make a social campus.


*Which I think is problematic, but not a result of a racial selection thing. I just think it's unhealthy to have the top school of any region to be dominated by a particular race. It would be a problem if the school was 97% Indian or 97% White or 97% Black too, because these are not the demographics of the region. Ideally, the school's demographic ratios would match the ratios of Sydney city (at an extremely rough estimate, I'd say probably 55% White, 30% Asian, 10% Indian, 5% Others). I mean, could you imagine if the top High School in Dubai was 97% White? Or the top High School in Calcutta being 97% Greek? Or the top High School in Beijing being 97% black?

An enforced demographic reflection is not the cure here, either. It's more that this reveals an underlying flaw in the use of SAT selection tests: they are not selecting the smartest students, you are selecting the most dedicated or the best at rote learning or the strongest drilled.

 

[MrIndigo]

Thirdly, and most seriously, it promotes resentment of the favoured group by other groups. How would you feel if you didn't get a job or a college place because of an 'affirmative action' policy giving it to someone else. (Most people here I expect will say they would direct their displeasure at those who instigated the policy, but what one says one would feel isn't what one would actually feel, and Smogonites are probably of above-average intelligence compared to the general population.)

Quoted for truth.

This is a large part of what I had in mind when I said AffAct doesn't work; it doesn't help redress the racist attitudes of the populace, but ENCOURAGES them. If anything, it works directly against the ideal of fostering racial equality.

 

[Quaily]

It's not just race either. My sister's fiance went to Perdue for graduate studies in engineering. He could see plain as day that some of the females in his program that graduated should not have. It's actually pretty ridiculous because the graduation rate for males is about 10%, and for females it's 40-50%. You know why? because there are only about 10-12 females enroll for engineering, and the college thinks only having 1-2 graduate looks bad, even though it's the statistical norm.

 

[Slyguy46]

The top high school in my state (by a wide statistical margin, and has been like this for the past decade or more) is 97% Asian.*

This is not because they select them out by race, but simply because the testing processes to apply to this high school (and selective high schools in general) is geared heavily towards rote learning and drilled practices, both of which Asian people are either genetically (I've seen no studies suggesting it either for or against this) or culturally predisposed to. Also, there is a cultural aspect in that Asian parents are more likely to push their child to succeed, and this is understandable. The same is true of Indian families, and it has arisen because of the phenomenal populations of these two regions. When you are one of 2 million students in your year grade, you need to be dedicating your life to being the brightest of the brightest just to have a chance to be noticed.

It's only natural, then, that in lower populated Western countries, this leads to an inflated success at early ages.

To relate back to your specific point; it is unlikely that they are selecting students on the basis of their race, they have no incentive to do that. If you have an unusually low or unusually high percentage of a particular ethnic group, it will be because their selection formula incorporates some nondeliberate systematic bias. For example, a school with a low Asian demographic may have a bias towards the outgoing and creative and against the introverted and bookish. Since many high-school age Asians fall into the latter category because of the dedication and study culture, it would make the university appear to be deliberately excluding Asians when they're trying to make a social campus.


*Which I think is problematic, but not a result of a racial selection thing. I just think it's unhealthy to have the top school of any region to be dominated by a particular race. It would be a problem if the school was 97% Indian or 97% White or 97% Black too, because these are not the demographics of the region. Ideally, the school's demographic ratios would match the ratios of Sydney city (at an extremely rough estimate, I'd say probably 55% White, 30% Asian, 10% Indian, 5% Others). I mean, could you imagine if the top High School in Dubai was 97% White? Or the top High School in Calcutta being 97% Greek? Or the top High School in Beijing being 97% black?

An enforced demographic reflection is not the cure here, either. It's more that this reveals an underlying flaw in the use of SAT selection tests: they are not selecting the smartest students, you are selecting the most dedicated or the best at rote learning or the strongest drilled.

That being said, the friend I was talking about is still insanely smart, and active outside of school activities. He is proficient enough in a sport to be the captain of the squad (which is State Ranked), and is active in several organizations. Why wouldn't MIT want him for their class?

 

[MrIndigo]

That being said, the friend I was talking about is still insanely smart, and active outside of school activities. He is proficient enough in a sport to be the captain of the squad (which is State Ranked), and is active in several organizations. Why wouldn't MIT want him for their class?

Who knows? Maybe they're taking less enrolments this year, maybe his application sounded too X when they're looking for Y... It depends on how they consider their applications.

 

[Zach]

Not that along ago there was a thread here whining about the nefarious feminist conspiracy to subjugate men. Now I am informed that black people only have a bad lot in life because they're too lazy to learn anything. Can someone get Deck Knight to pen a screed about the oppression of Christianity at the hands of secular humanism and call it a trifecta?

Fellow people of a liberal persuasion, don't assume that opposition to affirmative action is based on appeals to progressive values. It's as much a part of a reactionary white racial agenda as demagoguery about welfare queens, no matter how much it's dressed up in platitudes about political correctness to appear hip and edgy.

Got a bit of a chip on your shoulder there buddy.

An ad hominem attack has no place in an intellectual discussion no matter how verbose or 'witty'. And on a side note, it is because I am "of a liberal persuasion" that I hold these views - I want all people applying to college or for a job to be equally considered based on their merits (without regard to their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation). This is a 'liberal' view, even if its not stock liberalism supplied to me by others. It is a view formed based on the sentiments of liberalism and progressivism because it supports the rights of all, including the majority. Racism is a two-way street; the majority is not impervious to being the subject of racism.

Remember that just because you broke out the thesaurus does not mean you made a valid point.

 

[billymills]

I've noticed a lot of posts about American College's racist selection policy, but I think this is a really terrible example of affirmative action. It's simply stupid. I don't know any reason you could argue that it's better to choose people on a basis of race. If you want to take the hardest working students, even if they happen to have a lower GPA or SAT, that's a different story. But profiling students among the best in their race, that's just plain wrong.