What do you think of a scholarship for whites only?

I do know that doing it as a "parody" (which was their exact words in the Press Release) could be construed as disrespectful and antagonistic. I feel like if you are going to create a fund where it allows one to attend an institute of higher learning it should not be toyed with or sold short. $250 would not even by your meals for a month at most colleges/universities. Although I would take the $250.

I guess they should have them since they have them for blacks only.

A scholarship for blacks is about selecting members of a specific group for specific reasons, while a white-only scholarship is about excluding minorities. Something more focused, a scholarship for Irish-Americans, or Italian-Americans, or whatever, would be more equivalent to a scholarship for blacks, and more acceptable.

I think it's kind of racist, the same way I think about blacks only scholarships. I'd prefer to see scholarships based on someone's actual means and abilities so poor black kids would get the same consideration as poor white kids, and the kind of school they went to would also be taken into account. I believe, with my limited understanding of the structure of US cities, that would result in more black kids being targeted for scholarships than white kids, but people shouldn't be overlooked for a scholarship on the basis of their race.

That said, if a private individual is awarding the scholarship, they probably have a specific reason for doing so. For example, if someone chose to honour their grandfather by funding a "Black lawyer" scholarship, then so be it. Black people are under-represented in law schools. A "White lawyer" scholarship might be harder to understand as I doubt white people are under-represented in law school. However a "poor white lawyer" scholarship might be deemed more acceptable.

Access to higher education should just be widened generally. And those who can't afford to go should all be helped along. An educated society is a better society.

It's wrong, but as long as it comes from private funding, it should be legal. It does highlight affirmative action. It's like setting up a charity for homeless CEO victims of agressive takeovers though. It's a charity for the moderately unfortunate. Scholarships should be based on potential for a cause. A cause could be 'spiritual writing', 'social justice', 'innovative transportation engineering', or 'jazz dance'. If there were a place where whites were much worse off than other races, it would make sense. I've never heard of such a place.

I don't think that the $250 is going to go very far. Maybe they could get a better source of funding...

The Nazi party, perhaps? Can't you just see the TV ads now?... 'Your charitable contributions to the Nazi party help young Aryans face the tough challenges of world supremacy.'

I think it's perfectly okay. There's plenty of scholarships for blacks only. Why should whites only scholarships be any different?

Scholarships should be based on abilities, not race.

I think this very much depends on the catchment reasons. We are a computer training company and we had a contract available to provide free training for people from ethnic minorites. This was based in the council borough of Newham only. Then the results of the census came out that said that Newham was one of two boroughs in London where white people were officially in the minority. We had a white woman approach the store needed help and support. She couldn't afford it but we had to turn her away.

I'm with ihatespiders on this.

We need affirmative action to correct problems of inequality in our society, problems that have their basis in an unbelievably racial biased system (slavery). People of all races are equally capable, yet our society is heavily biased in favor of whites. We have made good progress in the last few decades, but we have much further to go. We need to act to help the oppressed minorities in our culture. Reactions such as whites-only scholarships are disturbing to me.

What you have said makes sense if "black" for the purposes of the scholarship means those of African descent only. What about persons from Jamaica? Would they qualify? If they do then it seems that the basis is skin colour.

It sucks!

I think it's racist, but it's no more racist than a scholarship for blacks only, Asians only, Mexicans only, etc.
And its a good way to highlight affirmative racism.

I just think it's stupid. It's trying make a point while missing the point entirely.

Sure, why not. It's ok with me.

I'll start my own private funded scholarship for only Rockmen.

I think anywhere scholarships are based on race - scholarships based on any race should be permitted.

Sure, since here are many scholarships geared for people with certain ethnicity, and that seems to be okay.

I think it's racist but also highlights the racism of affirmative action.

What a racist attitude! So ALL white students are wealthy and from supportive and complete homes and ALL live within walking distance of a campus? I think your comment shows what a twisted view of the world people who support affirmative action have.

Kristal, not ALL whites are better off than ALL blacks. PEople should be taken on an individual basis, not grouped according to race and assumed to be well off just because of their skin colour and denied access to aid they might need very much.

Yeah, Condoleeza Rice is so hard done by.

I know that, and I agree, but you are making the same demographic assumptions on crime control that I am making on assistance. Neither is fair, they are merely convenient. As I see it, it is more reasonable to accidentally help someone who may not need it, then to ccidentally hassle someone who has done nothing wrong. Alas, we can only currently afford security and assistance as wholesale packages, and not do either on an individualised basis. Perhaps one day both will be possible. Even then we have to contend with existing cultural influence happening on a wholesale basis for each demograph.

As for your comment to Teddy, I saw nothing in his comment that made such an impliction. I thought his point on motive was a very good one. If black targeted scholorships were about black supremacy, I couldn't support them either, but currently I see no threat of that happening. The 70's Nixon administration co-opted/bought-out our black supremacy leaders then drove them into the dirt.

FINALLY!!! AA is reverse discrimination. I've always felt this way. Everybody deserves a chance, but somebody should not receive a job/scholarship/promotion/etc for the reason of the fact that they are a minority. Hire the most qualified. End of story.

So the black student who has 75% of the college tuition paid for by "minority only" scholarships, are worse of than me, who's been in school for 6 yrs, and I'm JUST now getting my two year degree??? Let's see, I was laid off from my job and unemployed for 4 months, thus creating great debt that didn't allow me to return to school for a year and a half. Currently I make $1100 a month, and I have to pay approximately $650 in rent and utilities. This isn't including my $150 vehicle payment + car insurance and gas. Sure, get rid of the car payment... easier said than done, b/c then I wouldn't be able to continue going to school as I can no longer take online courses, and the campus I have to go to is a 30 minute drive away, and I obviously need a reliable vehicle. So yes, I am SO much more advantaged then these minorities with scholarships and grants coming out of their asses.

So the black student who has 75% of the college tuition paid for by "minority only" scholarships, are worse of than me, who's been in school for 6 yrs, and I'm JUST now getting my two year degree??? Let's see, I was laid off from my job and unemployed for 4 months, thus creating great debt that didn't allow me to return to school for a year and a half. Currently I make $1100 a month, and I have to pay approximately $650 in rent and utilities. This isn't including my $150 vehicle payment + car insurance and gas. Sure, get rid of the car payment... easier said than done, b/c then I wouldn't be able to continue going to school as I can no longer take online courses, and the campus I have to go to is a 30 minute drive away, and I obviously need a reliable vehicle. So yes, I am SO much more advantaged then these minorities with scholarships and grants coming out of their asses.

BTW - There's other white men and women in similar situations as well, not just me.

I gave up on cars and bicycle instead, and find it's nearly as fast in LA traffic. It does suck for carrying sculptures to and from school though.
If minority grants were so commonplace, I can't imagine why the last census reports (I worked in admin during the census) claim that both relative income, educational level, and educational attendance are all even more racially disproportional than they were a decade ago. Also, aside from ethnicity, the jini index has continued to shift, which means in plain english that the rich have become even richer, and the poor have become even poorer since last decade (same with all decades for that matter).

I don't argue these statistics, my point is... I'm busing my ass to better myself and what do I get? I get loans, and 6 yrs just to get an AA, whereas most blacks have an adequate supply of scholarships and grants.

Could it be that (in regards to the USA at least) that 10% of Americans own 90% of the wealth? 1 man...Bill Gates owns how much money? Look at the movie stars. The only group that gives minorities a chance at owning money are people like Missy Elliot, Lil' Kim, etc etc. But there's a hell of alot of rich white people than minorities.

My point is, AA is creating a lazy society, and is maintaining racism.

Only 4% of whites in college are fully scholarshipped vs 9% of blacks, 8% hispanics, and 3% asian/pacific, however, considering 86% of college students are white, that still implies a far disproportionate amount of scholarships are handed to whites. I also found in one study that actually more loans and scholarships went out to those with medium/high income levels than those in low income levels.
It took me 14 years to get my dual AA in computer-science /studio-art, though I started in highschool (I'm a genius). I got by with tuition grants available to all california low income students attending community college. I ended up attending community college for a few years after that too because I couldn't afford otherwise and because in just four years, my transfer requirements had become obsolete. I understand your frustration, having been there myself, but the problem is not that more grants go to minorities.
'My point is, AA is creating a lazy society, and is maintaining racism.' Could you rephrase that? I don't get what you're saying.
Oh, and btw, it's less than 1%, not 10%.

She's an exceptional case. Most minorities need help to compensate for lingering
What percent of the CEOs of major companies are non-white? 5% ? less?

'My point is, AA is creating a lazy society, and is maintaining racism.'

In the workplace there is a requirement for the same percentage of black that live in a county to be hired. Ok, 30% of the residents of a county are black, therefore 3 out of every 10 people in the workplace must be black, this also applies towards public schools (including colleges). The same goes for Hispanic and Asians, and women. I have no problem with the opposite sex nor any ethnic heritage.

1) Well qualified people are passed up for promotions (or the job itself) so as to fulfill these quotas. Don't you want the best qualified person working for you? Well, it's not allowed. Therefore minorities in the modern day do not have to put forth the same effort as a white person.

2) Minorities in the modern day have job security. Workplaces are scared to terminate the lazy asses in fear of lawsuit. I've witnessed this numerous times, and they do as little as possible without getting in too much trouble.

I'm not saying this is the case with all minorities, because I've also known some that give 110%, but as a whole, there is less of a requirement to put forth as much effort as a white person.

When a black woman makes the comment that she likes working with white people because there's more work getting done, as opposed to a predominately black shift of workers whereas it's mostly standing around and talking. Then on top of that another black male confirms it.

I personally can't wait for the day (especially in the USA) that all of us are mulattos. Then there won't be a color difference, (hopefully) we will view each other as people finally. Unfortunately this won't occur in my lifetime, but that is my point. I think that scholarships/grants ought to be dristributed to students, not blacks, not women, not homosexuals...just STUDENTS.

At least somebody understands where I'm coming from.

You look forward to a time when you're all "libidos"? Never heard the word used in that context before

Mulatto ... thanks Biggles *runs to go change that now*

Now that was a good Malapropism

I can tell you exactly why I used the wrong word. In Nirvana's song "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is how I cam to learn the meaning of both words obviously at the same time, when I was about 13. I knew what I meant to say, I knew the right word, but was singing the lyrics in my head.

If it was for real, and promoted by a school, university or college, then it would be a very bad idea. However, I don't object to what's being done in the case reported here, where a student group has deliberately done it in order to demonstrate the absurdity of all race-based scholarships. It's perfectly acceptable to parody the language of racism in order to fight racism.

Alcoholics anonymous?, Asoociate of Arts? Oh, Affirmative action.
I wasn't asking for an explanation, I simply didn't know what you were saying.
Well, even if what you say is on the books, it isn't true in practice, at least not in california. Not only in the in the census data, but in my own experience, I found few minorities in college, and almost none in my several software engineering jobs, even though the communities I lived in were predominantly black.
Your experiences are apparently much different.
I too would prefer not based on ethnicity, but we at least have to dhave equal educations to accomplish that. When I lived in Oakland, my neighbors daughter was in third grade, and was just counting to 20. I'd take the bus to my programming job in Moraga, and 6th graders on the bus (just three years older) were discussing SAT prep and choice of colleges. My neighbor tried to get her daughter into one of the neighboring schools, but they require several forms of ID, they have no interest in letting Oakland kids share their level of education. Which kids do you think will be running this country 30 years from now?

Even if Condoleeza was the only case, that only highlights the obscenity of treating all blacks like retards. I don't think she is an exceptional case considering that the most hard done by social group are rural whites. I believe they are called Hillbillies? Because these people are white they are excluded from many types of aid. The assumption that all whites are better off than all blacks is clearly wrong. Why then is it considered acceptable by some people to treat people like it isn't wrong?

I don't know what percentage of CEOs are non-white. When do you think it will be at an acceptable level, when there are the same proportions as the races of the public in general? HAve you ever considered that if more non-whites or women were capable they would be CEOs? Are you suggesting you stick any black person in charge of a company simply because they are black? The idea is ludicrous and racist. Surely people should be employed because they are the best for the job.

Here we have a racist and sexist leftist party in power in my state. They want to get 50% women in parliament so they place token women who have no experience and can't do the job in all the safe seats so they are ensured a win. This type of thing is absolutely disgusting. Token puppets used for their race or sex is degradation. Race or sex should not be determining factor in anything. Imagine if people with IQs below 70 demanded equal representation as leaders of companies. It makes the same sense as choosing people based on something as meaningless as skin colour who would already be in those positions if they had the required skills.

It's very likely that Condoleeza's current position is in part the product of affirmative action. I don't think she was treated like a retard, I think she was given opportunities that otherwise she would not have had (due to lingering racism in our society).

I think we should help "Hillbillies" too. We should help all poor people to become self sufficient. I guess I see affirmative action as more a middle class (and up) issue. Minorities have been traditionally banned or discouraged from rising beyond a certain height in their careers. So, we should work on motivating more of them to rise higher with programs that give them better education and access to higher level jobs.

An acceptable level would be when the numbers are close to population ratios. I think at such levels, affirmative action will be moot as it will be the norm to accept and hire minorities at the rates that AA suggests.

No, I don't think we should put unqualified people in any position or school. I think that's an anti-AA spin. I think in most cases there are plenty of qualified minorities that simply aren't getting a chance due to lingering racial biases.

I think relying on people who show signs of racist attitudes to pick who is best for a job tends to make the problem of racism worse.

I agree that race and sex should not be a determining factor in anything, but that has been the case historically and it has not been fixed yet. So, I believe we need to act to force social change. It's the only way we've ever managed to make progress with issues of race or gender bias, by creating laws and forcing people to do the right thing. In time, they realize it's not so bad and that race and sex really don't matter. But, we're not there yet.

I don't think forcing people to accept others because of their race is the right thing. In 50 years time will white students denied scholarships today be demanding they are given more positions in companies to compensate for their ill treatment today? Solving racism with racism is the worst way to go about it. There are already laws in place that make it illegal to disciminate against a person because of their race (unless that person is white of course). That's all that is needed.

Agreed, equal education for all.

I think that's the heart of the issue. Are the laws which make discrimination illegal enough? The USA got these laws in the 1960s, over 30 years ago, but we still have problems with apparent racial bias. So, it seems to me that trying to do more to motivate racial equality is needed. Affirmative action addresses this need.

Some of the blame for a supposed "racial bias" should be taken on by non-whites. It's a fact that the most succesful students in math and science are generally Asian. Are the white students who are less successful deprived of the same tutoring, lecturing and access to campus facilities? No. So should the Asian students be penalised in order to address the imbalance and ensure more whites, blacks and hispanics are as successful? Wouldn't that make as much sense as eliminating positions in companies for whites because they are too successful? Surely some of the responsibilty for the positions people find themselves in lies with them. I would think all of it did. There are plenty of people who succeed in this world who come from far worse situations than American Blacks.

I think any scholarships that are for a particular race, no matter what that race are, are wrong. Scholarships should be based on academic achievement.

Is that (Asians & math) really a fact, or just another racial stereotype?
I will admit that there are pitfalls to affirmative action, it's not a perfect solution, but I still think there's a need for more to be done to correct a deep-seated racial imbalance in our society, especially for African-Americans in the USA.
I think the issue is largely cultural. Because blacks were brought over as slaves, and lived as such for generations, then lived under extreme racial prejudice and repression (lynch mobs, Jim Crow laws, "back of the bus", etc.) for decades after that... they were never given a fair chance. I believe society owes them something for what was done to them. I believe we should make some sacrifices to help them raise themselves out of the poverty our ancestors left them with.

The reason that you won't get through to him is that he believes they already have equal opportunity, and if they don't, tough beans, god didn't make us equal at birth. He's also framed it in a logic tangential to our own, which, on it's own, sounds good in theory. I may have also detected 'Shockley' thinking, which he can get away with saying PC, when he brings it up from a positive angle. It's all also quite tied into notions of the cornucopia of capitalism. It's kind of a house of cards, and if you pick on any piece of it, the whole house will tumble.
That different breeds of humans have differing statistical strengths and weaknesses seem as reasonable to me as dog breeds differing from each other. That it is consequential enough to have any bearing on society is something else which I don't believe in. Science was born in Africa, where it may be more analog than digital in philosphical wiring, but no better or worse. Most stereotypes are founded in some truth. There are a lot of good black basketball players, that dosen't mean you should look at a black person and automatically think basketball.
I can envision some deeper logic happening too: 'I'm not getting what I want. It must be my fault, though I'm not getting help either, therefore everyone who isn't getting what they want, must be at fault themselves, and shouldn't be helped either'.

Sadly, affirmative action and similar programs breed more racial prejudice. I really can't see how it's possible for a program that's based on prejudice to make things better but suppose it could. So how do we know when it's time to end affirmative action? How do we know that it's not actually making things worse rather than better?

Does affirmative action breed more racial prejudice? Has that been shown? I think it's clear it pisses some white people off, but I wouldn't call that prejudice, I would think that anger isn't necessarily directed at blacks either.
I think when studies show minorities being represented in similar ratios as they are in population numbers, we'll know to scale back affirmative action and eventually get rid of it. I think any sort of social issue that a government institutes runs the danger of doing more harm than good, and we should try to build-in tests that give some feedback, or just listen to people and adjust over time. I guess I feel that it's better than doing nothing. I think we did nothing or close to nothing for a long time and clearly it hasn't worked that well.
There's a very similar situation going on with "title 9" legislation and sports funding. There are male athletes who are suffering because schools are unable to find female athletes to create an equal quota. I've seen some unfortunate stories related to that. But, I see it as pain that our society may need to go through to get to a place where there is true equality, not just on paper, but right in front of our eyes. We have biases and they are often hard to see and especially hard to change.

I think it's a fact.. Most math prizes and top marks are achieved by Asians, and it isn't any Asians. They are generally Chinese or Taiwanese.

It seems like Affirmative action is about making todays whites pay for the ill treatment of past non-whites. I don't know how much sense it makes. It seems to me that it is like me demanding compensation from the Italian government because the Romans invaded Britain. When do you draw the line?

Sorry to butt in, but AA just doesn't just piss off whites. A Pakistani immigrant in the UK sued the police service because he was promoted because of his race. He sued for racial discrimination, and so he should. His ability to do the job was not considered. All that mattered was his race.

I think it's great! Here in New Zealand there are several scholarships/saved seats etc for Maori's only - what about us white folk???

I've known a few Chinese-Americans who are just about average at math and they find that assumed "fact" to be annoying and prejudicial. You seem to have a racial bias (albeit positive). I think the same thing exists for African Americans, but the bias is that they are lazy and/or stupid or worse, "all criminals". Young African American men get pulled over by police more often. Our death rows are populated primarily by African American men. I could go on. There are clear signs of racial imbalance in our current day society. We have not solved racism (it's not something that happened 2,000 years ago like the romans), it's happened right now. To turn a blind eye to it is embrace injustice.
Without knowing all the facts, just what you have said, I would tend to agree that the Pakistani immigrant had a fair case (did he win?). I think it's tricky to apply AA and there are going to be cases where people make mistakes. Hopefully, its the exception not the rule. Unqualified people should not be promoted, we should always consider ability to do the job as the primary criteria. But, when you have an all white police force and you have a choice of 2 qualified applicants, choosing the minority over the white guy is the right thing to do.

There are certainly people who, when they see a black person in college or as a doctor, assume that person got where they did because of the color of their skin, not because of their abilities. That's racial prejudice.

I think we (as a country) did not do nothing for a long time, we did worse than nothing. There were laws that actively discriminated against blacks and that was wrong. The elimination of those laws and the creation of things like affirmative action happened about the same time so I don't think government absence from this area has yet been tried.

There's no doubt that we still have quite a problem with racial prejudice in the US. And I can't see that I really have a solution for that. I just think that instituting more racial discrimination by law can not possibly make the situation better.

I think the idea is that, despite the initial prejudicial response some people might have to seeing a black person in college or as a doctor (as you say); ultimately seeing them in that position is enough to diminish and perhaps eliminate their analogous beliefs that black people don't have the ability to be college students or doctors. Seeing is believing. Where if we do nothing, those beliefs may never be challenged and blacks will have a mammoth struggle to achieve in our society.

People might say Condoleezza Rice got where she is because of affirmative action, but they also can't deny that she has the ability and is doing the job as well as anyone else. In the end, I think that ends up being a win.

I think the fact that laws were made (especially post Civil War) that explicitly discriminated against blacks, is proof that if we do nothing, the worst kinds of things are likely to happen. Those laws were codifying how people felt at the time. hmm... the logic here seems a little circular.

I think we're at the early stages with this regarding gay marriage right now. Most of the country is against it, yet it's clearly a form of discrimination and some courts agreeing despite popular opinion.

It's not a racial bias. It's observation. Most Chinese who attend Australian universities are full fee paying and are here for one reason, to gain a degree. It's not a racial bias to expect these Chinese students to occupy the first few rows of every lecture theatre. It's also historically common for such students to we awarded scholarships and the highest grades. Not every thing common to one racial group is a stereotype. Here they generally show the students that gain the highest OP grade for the final year of high school on the news. They are invariably of Chinese origin, even if they are born in Australia. Of course I know not all chinese are good at school, but it can't be denied that those who go through to the last year of high school then on to university do very well, and above average.

I never saw the outcome of the UK police officer who was angry about being promoted because of his race alone. You said that unqualified people should not be promoted, but it is well known that under AA it is common for less qualified people to be promoted. Shouldn't the best person for the job get it? If there are 2 jobs going in an all white police force, choosing the best person for the job no matter their race is the best thing to do.

Don't you have reserved seashores where only Maori can look for shellfish? Talk about apartheid!

Oh, I'll disagree with you about Condoleeza Rice. After seeing some of her reaction to 9/11, I think she's an idiot.

As for the rest of your comment, I hope you're right that seeing black people in college does decrease prejudice more than it increases it. I'm not sure I believe it, I don't think legalizing racial discrimination will help racial discrimination, but I hope you're right.

And while I would totally love to see the equal protection clause enforced to a MUCH greater extent than it is now, starting with legalizing gay marriage would be fine, note that it would end affirmative action as AA is all about being unequal.

> Oh, I'll disagree with you about Condoleeza Rice. After seeing some
> of her reaction to 9/11, I think she's an idiot.

Yeah, that's why I hedged what I said a little and said "she ... is doing the job as well as anyone else". I think her ability level is similar to others in Bush's cabinet.

Well, to the degree that some Chinese do well in school, I think it's more a factor of culture (perhaps influenced by the drive it takes for them to immigrate) and a tradition of strong family support than their race. To say it's racial is a bit dodgy IMHO. Also, you're using anecdotal reasoning, not sound statistical analysis. I'm sure the people who think Blacks are lazy and stupid can point to a few who are, but it doesn't make their reasoning correct.

I don't agree that "under AA it is common for less qualified people to be promoted.". Again, I think there have been several well-publicized exceptional examples where that was the case, but I think in general it works out fairly well and few have a problem with it. Again, this is media-driven anecdotal evidence, not scientific studies about how often often AA causes problems.

My 1st generation chinese best friend's older brother was class valedictorian. My friend and I stayed up till 3am listening to punk rock and doing very little homework, and got B's. His brother spent hours per day on homework. He also got a full scholarship from some tech firm. Likewise, blacks are associated with athleticism, but the ones I know highly encourage sports and dance all through the childs life (much more than I've ever seen in white friends homes), and the TV sitcom programming targeted at that market is also full of athleticism and dance (Ally McBeal was a blatant exception), so the chicken/egg nurture/nature question is still a tough one. Do parents teach it because they were taught it, or because it comes natural?
Again though, look at dogs. Different breeds are associated with different behaviors, like digging, swimming, retrieving, protecting, etc. even when they are taken from their litter as pups before having a chance to see such behaviors. It would seem unlikely to me that humans are exempt from this phenomenon. Certainly, different races are susceptable to different diseases in differing degrees.
I don't think AA was actually used that much, but if it were, unless the proportion of arriving candidates changed - whoa, I just caught myself in some false logic, I bet others have too. The false (incomplete) logic: with AA, if there are two candidates, and the non-minority candidate is more qualified, but the minority quota is low, the minority will still get the position anyhow. The forgotten logic: If there are many candidates of two races, both groups with a mix of qualification level, AA prevents hiring inferior non-minorities before hiring proporional quantities of qualified minorities.

I just realised more of the intent of AA [see comment to bill above for more detail]. You're always going on about being forced to hire unqualified minorites. AA is to prevent organistaions from hiring inferior non-minorities even though qualified minorities exist. Pretty women are hired before smarter ones. Hiring co-workers is not a place where the ideology of objective productive capitalism rules. Most people would rather choose their favorite personality which meets the minimum qualifications than simply whoever may be best qualified. AA was designed to break the good ol' boys club.

There was a recent Nova (PBS) show about the genetics of dogs that was interesting. Theorists agree that they descended from wolves, but how that happened exactly is a matter of much debate. They referenced some work a Russian geneticist did with foxes while exiled in Siberia. Selecting for tameness seemed to cause a host of other variations in color, ears and tails. Also, modern dog breeders rely heavily on inbreeding and as a result many breeds are suffering from genetic diseases that could easily wipe them out. OK, that was off topic, but it's interesting stuff nonetheless.
I've heard that genetically speaking, race is largely irrelevant (though, I've also heard some conflicting statements from genetic testing on Africans). Most "blacks" in America have white ancestors (are mixed... the term "colored" had to be used to describe them). Can we even define what it is to be black in America. You know it when you see it? I think black culture in America is affected greatly by the way their ancestors got here (slavery), especially when you compare it to most other groups who immigrated here to start a new life.

Yeah, I hadn't really mentioned it yet, but I think AA actually targets a key decision point which is often ambiguous and prone to racial interpretation. How often was the white guy picked over the other candidates despite being less qualified? With AA, how often would that continue to occur? Since the idea of who is most qualified is often ambiguous, it's likely hard to prove one way or another, thus despite anti-discrimination laws, it still happens. In some people's minds, being white probably makes a person more qualified. So, AA forces the issue... it's heavy-handed, but compared to the ambiguity, it seems more fair to me.

So it's all culture. Then why are people helped according to race?

That's not why AA was established. If it was there wouldn't be quotas that have to be filled with lesser qualified minorities when adequately qualified minorities fail to apply. That's all besides the point however. No matter how you dress it up or make excuses for it, AA is a racist policy. You can't argue that. Any policy that forces people to make a decision concerning an individual based on their race is racist. You categorize all people based on their race. You expect all people of one race to be better off than all people of another race. This is not the truth. AA is therefore based on a racist lie.

reverse-reverse discrimination. How about that.

If you're talking about white scholarships, how about a scholarship for "rednecks"only. If anyone, they're the ones who really need it, not suburbanites like me (though more would certainly be nice).

Anyway, in effect, they allready had scholarships for "whites" allready even before this, just in a different way. For instance, they might have one for Romanians or Ukranians set up by some rich Ukranian guy. There really is no such thing as white because it has been broken down into so many different sub-sectors. But thats going away, so I guess you could say there is.

I think that affirmitive action is an anacronism which is slowly going to get phased out. I think that instead of having scholarships based on race, they should do it based on family income. And we know that most of todays poor are minorites anyway, so they would still be getting helped.

Not to worry, in like 50 years, we'll all be gray anyway, so it wont even be an issue .

AA approximates with final numbers, while giving employers some personal shifting freedoms, another system which is not racist at all: Taking hiring out of the hands of employers altogether, and giving that task to objective external tribunals of mixed constituency dedicated to ensuring that qualifications were chosen without regards to race. It's much more fair, yet I can assure you that employers would still prefer to arbitrarily fill AA quotas and otherwise choose their own candidates.
When I did some research on scholorships for this survey, I found that even within racial sub-groups, that scholarships were going to the wealthy and middle class before the poor. Apparently everyone wants to help their own (economic) sub-culture, rather than even the odds as one might imagine scholorships were intended to do.

I started to respond, but I would just be repeating myself. Essentially, it is to compensate for past and present racial inequality and discrimination.

Yep, all the points have been pretty much laid out, and it comes down to a philosphy of whethar people should serve the common good or accept machiavellian competition as the paramount nature of things. All arguments on 'how' to serve the common good will fail if the goal of the other is not to look out for the common good. In this particular case, you will get back an argument that machiavellian competition is beneficial to the common good, and thus, it's a hopeless argument from our side.

I don't know, I think it's pretty easy to make a case for the selfish reasons to help others in society. If we help poor people, we can likely reduce crime and thus the likelihood that any one person will get robbed. So, selfishly, I could choose to fund welfare programs to reduce the chance of me getting robbed.
I think the issue is more about a disagreement that the tactic in question works or not.

A minister type friend-of-the-family once said 'act as if you were going to live here for 15000 years.' He must have phrased it a bit differently though, because I can still imagine people trying to set themselves up as global dictator in such circumstances. The idea was 'make the world a better place'. 'lazy poor people stealing from rich nations and cultures who owe nothing'? - I don't think it's about tactics.

yeah, people suck.

Some do. Most of them are just inert, as long as they don't vote or something. Other's, as you say, are well intended with different tactics. They see 'opportunity for all' in a Monopoly game, and not 'one person wins, everyone else loses'.
I saw a pbs show on the Hines Farm Blues Club. It was a 40 acre near-commune, with baseball, concerts, picnics, motorcycle races, etc, mostly black, but unbiased. I'd like to see more of tthat sort thinking in todays world. As a teenager, I was a weekend actor in the Rennaissance Faire, and would sometimes hang out during the weekdays. It was nice to be on hugging terms with 200 creative strangers who would share whatever they were eating at the moment. I don't think too many people get a chance to see that life can be that way, and then they build a system on the presumption that it can't.

I'm fairly inert myself. Even I don't see it as "one person wins, everyone else loses". I tend to think we should just seek a compromise where most people win. By that I mean that we should have a society where most people are middle class and if not have a good chance at getting there if they work at it. I think what underlines some of the tactics is that many of us who have managed to achieve something worked for it, so it doesn't seem right to give a lot of help to others (especially, when they don't seem to have tried very hard, probably due to low self-esteem issues). Many of us struggle to get anywhere, so it seems unfair to give much help to others. We were taught that everyone has to work to earn their living. There is a certain "survival of the fittest" aspect to it as well. Isn't it healthy to have to struggle? I get the impression that some perhaps many poor people have given up because it all seems too hard. It is hard, but you can't give up. Now, I'm starting to take the other side's argument.
I think communal living can only work on small scales and even then, there are lots of problems you have to deal with day-to-day. It's a mixed bag in my opinion, I've personally lost my taste for it. Perhaps, we could do it on a larger scale if we had the hive-mind Borg wirehead thing going on, though that's pretty distasteful as well.

That's still assuming ALL blacks are worse off that ALL whites isn't it? It's unjustifiable.

The best system to avoid racism is to employ people based on their ability. That would of course mean the abandonment of AA. Didn't CA recently vote to elimiate AA? CA is a state with a huge non-white population. That would suggest that all races want to be treated as humans rather than a member of a racial group that are seen as screw-ups who can only succeed if they are helped out or if whites are handicapped somehow.

Blacks have all their own special things (Black Miss America, Nat Negro College Fund, etc) but when another race wants to do it, especially whites, then its "bad".

It's healthy to take up the opposition's side of the argument from time to time, otherwise you will be unable to author comprehensive wise compromises. 'Hive mind' is what went wrong with all the communist-socialist nations to date. The modern compromise I have in mind is using corporate identity to create alternative socialist pockets; democratic employee owned work/live business enterprises more concerned with collective self-sufficiency than external profits.

I recently argued with you somewhere that employers would probably prefer to use their own discretion while abiding to AA proportions, than have a just tribunal ensure that 'ability' was the sole criteria.
To be honest, at least within the small business environment, I don't back up AA either. Something needs to be done to create equal opportunity, and AA is the best solution I've seen so far, but I also feel that businesses often exist not so much as profit machines, but as lifestyle opportunities for the employees, and it is the right of small businesses to choose their co-workers, even as as racists, as it is for people to choose their friends with racial and cultural biases. It may be unfortunate and pathetic, but it is their right. It becomes problematic when it is done to such extent that an entire culture is shut out, yet does not have the resources to create a parallel environment on their own. Society is created by it's members, and it is the responsibility of society to at least ensure that equal rights and opportunities exist for everyone within that society. Ideally that would be by everyone eleminating bias from their personal lives, but since that doesn't appear likely to happen anytime soon, reverse bias within the system has to exist somwhere to the same extent that bias exists.
We have a huge non-white population that can't vote, yet those that can vote are increasing in number too, and there are movements to head off that culture in legislation before they ever do get a voting majority opportunity to change things.

A fair number of sci-fi books make that connection, company as community/tribe. I think Snow Crash was one of the first books that had it, though perhaps as early as Neuromancer (it's all a blur in my head). Really, it's not so different from some earlier company structures (e.g mining companies with company housing and stores), though those cases were famous for their exploitation or workers. Have you heard of arcologies, they also seem similar. I played a computer game recently that was set in a possible future that had arcologies, which also seem similar in concept; work/home in the same place, close to communal, though separate entities exist within. Still, I'd rather live in relative isolation, personally.

cool site. I figured out much the same stuff on my own (probably inspired by reading disney engineer stuff as a kid). Also, when I think I consider anything ancient, like the hanging gardens of babylon, or bakers row, with the lodging above the workshop with apprentices, I look for what wisdom it has to offer that may have been lost. Supposedly, we are just catching up with some thermodynamic designs from a few centuries ago. Max Headroom was one of those sci-fi corporate environments, in which not only did people entirely belong to corporations, but the corporations were at war with eachother. I had just written a screenplay about a computer generated personality running the country, and considered Max Headroom and Weird Science both short-sighted rip-offs of my unpublished concepts at the time. 20 years later, they still haven't stolen all of it. I was thinking one year to release it as as flash animation comic or something.

The best way to address any problem with equal opportunity is to ensure all schools no matter where they are have access to the same standard of education. If the average GPA of a ceertain school is lower than average, resources should be injected into that school. A reduced student to teacher ratio in the poorest performing schools would mean students have more access to teachers. Perhaps tutors should be used until the GPA rises to at least average. Race should play no part in any decision.

I whole-heartedly agree with that one. That alone would probably nearly eliminate any inequities, if not in ultimate results, than at least in arguable theory. The structure of the universe makes it hard not to be a hypocrite. Nothing is black and white. Not all ideologies are compatable. In the case of schools, I would definitely do away with funding them locally on local property taxes. My idea is a voucher system in which people could enroll their children in an arts, military, or religious school if they wanted to. The schools would all compete capitalistically about the results and environment they offer. If they don't even want to teach math, that's their right, but a minimal federal agency would ensure that parents had a fact sheet about what they could expect from that school (to counter false advertising). Any school that wanted to accept vouchers (set at a cost level for an average national education) would have two requirements: Open enrollment to all with a lottery when there are excess applications; and not being allowed to accept any fees above the voucher. The lack of that latter requirement is what has killed all voucher initiatives to date from people that did not want to undermine the relative results of public vs private schools. In this plan, all public schools would become private. You might fit three voucher program schools on what had been a single campus, and cut costs by sharing the existing cafeteria and playground. Since schools would be private corporations, usually co-motivated by profit, in spite of competitive cost-cutting, costs would likely increase to provide better teachers, better services, and advertise. This could happen though, because people would invest in schools and have a higher stake in asking congress to support higher vouchers, just as people now support defense industry legislation for investment purposes. My goal is diverse liberty and opportunity for all. I don't care if it is accomplished through socialism or capitalism, as long as it happens. I think, as in this example, that both systems have to work hand in hand. Socialist on a social level, and capitalist on a personal level. No one has tried before to create a socialism that was capitalist on a personal level. They've only tried systems so insanely socialised at every tier that artists and mathematicians were asked to do each other jobs.

Local funding for schools is definately your problem. Here all schools are funded by individual states so schools with poor results are seen as needing extra resources. Removal of school zoning would mean schools would have to compete more for students. If a school is not performing, why should they have a garanteed student body? I don't believe students here are compelled to stay within their local school. Freedom of choice and market again.

I like your idea of sharing resources between two schools. Staggered lunch breaks and gym sessions would mean existing facilities are used to the greatest level.

Single sex schools have better academic levels, especially in boys only schools. There is a recent acknowledgement in Australia that teachers, being mainly female, are esentially trying to de-sex boys by failing to acknowledge their interests and ways of learning and by punishing and discouraging male behaviour. There is also a push to recruit male teachers since some boys are fatherless and have no male role models. It is established fact that boys do far better when they are not trying to compete for the attention of girls. Many single sex schools in Australia have sister or brother schools that come together for social occasions and in some classes like drama. Two single sex schools built on adjacent sites could share some facilities. I like that idea. This is an example where the market should find this solution itself to save costs but it appears as if the government should make the move by building brother and sister schools alongside each other.

Now that you mention it, I went from a backwards student to an advanced student in the fifth grade when I had my first male tearcher. Mr Graph (appropriate name) was big on engineering which had been my hobby at home since I was born, so he let me learn algebra and 3D geometry on my own.
Single sex schools should be one option amongst dozens of varieties, like mixed grade, learning through art and movement, emphasis on socialisation or engineering, etc etc.
The existing system here definitely has problems. They will cut off funding for bad performance, but the students must still stay there. Bush has gone a step further and is now requiring teachers, even those that have been there for years, to have even more college. There aren't any provisions for paying any more for teachers though, which they already have trouble holding on to. It's as if he is trying to dismantle public education. He's certainly being accused of such. It was part of a package called 'No child left behind'. The bill also has provisions guaranteeing thorough access of students to military recruiters. (the two conditions seem to fit well together).

Our federal government seems to be trying to push parents into using private schools too. It's "user pays" ideology. It works for many things but with education and health the move is regressive because the poor must pay proportionately more for their services. It's like a proposal in Brisbane CBD to place tolls on all roads into the CBD to reduce congestion. This "congestion tax" is regressive because it is not like a regular toll which always has free alternative routes. This will completely surround the CBD with e-toll detectors so the poor will basically have a restriction on movement which I oppose absolutely. That reminds me, I have to write another letter to the paper opposing this discriminatory policy.

I think it's been coming for a long time. Ever since the UNCF, all white people have been waiting for someone ballsy enough to found a UWCF, or something similar. I think race-based scholarships are permissible under certain circumstances, I'm not sure of the requirements for any of the race-based scholarships so I have no comment otherwise.

Taxing any physical commodities is like that. An underwear tax wouldn't bother Bill Gates.

Yeah but this congestion tax is like a restriction on movement. People have a choice as to whether they wear underwear.

People have a choice on whethar to move or not. I'm just saying that any non-proportional tax an ony common goods or services will most affect the poor, to whom these expenses are a greater share of their activity. By demographic average, in contrast, a tax on international flights wouldn't so nearly affect the poor. Is their public transporation covering the same routes as the auto tolls? One possibilty would be to only tax commercial vehicles, which of course would turn around and cost everyone more for these services, whethar it be the cost of gardener, or the cost of hardware deliverd to your local hardware store, but at least the tax would hit people that were in business and could likely defray costs, rather than little old ladies on fixed incomes going grocery shopping.
On one hand it makes sense. Streets are for cars, and people who stay at home, jog, bicycle, or only occupy a seat on the bus shouldn't pay as much. On the other hand, you could look at it as a social need, like schools, with the presumption that society needs streets to sustain itself, and therefore maintaining streets should be an aggregate responsibility of society, not just the drivers. One could though even look at it as mans right to nature; Just as mankind was once free to sleep under any tree they chose, that which is not a private residence could be considered public space, and you have a right to travel through it untaxed, even if that requires a burro or off-road vehicle because no one is paying for pavement. Untill a moment ago, I was all for high gas taxes, but now that I think of it, that could be unfair to poor people who have to do a lot of driving. On the other hand, I don't think discouraging excessive is bad either, or you end up with what we have in california, everyone commuting hours a day to jobs far from home. I think the best tax system for road maintenance would be a free public transit system striving to eliminate the need for cars, taxes on all commercial vehicles based on mileage (hmm, but what's to stop a person from using their personal vehicle to attend cross-town meetings all day for a living?), and some form of general society taxation to pay road costs. We do quite the opposite here unfortunately; car expenses are all write-offs on ones business taxes. We encourage people to drive.

That's not something that I've dealt with a lot where I live and I think my opinion would be uninformed and therefore wrong. .

The proposal is to basically circle the CBD with tolls to restrict entry to those who can afford to. That's how it will end up working anyway. The city already placed a huge tax on parking structures in the CBD so it became prohibitive to park there. This encouraged a lot of people to use the park-n-ride train stations - drive to the train station and take the train to the city. Then of course they bumped up the price of train fares to cash in. They then approved a crap load of apartment buildings for the CBD so that the sprawl would be adressed (Brisbane is an enormous city for it's population). Now they are talking about this congestion tax to stop traffic into the CBD. What they seem to be forgetting is that it's the CBD - Central Business District, yet they appear to be taking measures to drive out communters and office workers. They are also causing more sprawl. There are now four major centers developing to the N,S,E and W of the CBD where services and offices are moving to, so there is really no reason for most people to ever go to the central city. It's bullcrap though. Brisbane is the state capital city, and there are places like the State Library, State Museum and Art Gallery as well as City Hall and State Paliament which will be all effectively surrounded by tolls. It's so unfair really. The rich will never give up their cars. To make it fair they should have what they did in Auckland, New Zealand. You had to choose one day a week where you would not use your car. You were then required by law to stick a large colour coded sticker on the windscreen indicating your chosen day, and you could be fined if you drove on that day. A lot of people opted to have one work day carless rather than go without their cars on the weekend, so it worked out that congestion was reduced by 1/7 immediately. The rich couldn't pay their way out of it, although doctors and such were excempt.

High fuel costs are unfair. Usually the poor can't pay to live close to their workplaces like the rich can, so are more dependant on cars. The poor also tend to do all the shiftwork, so they often travel when congestion is low anyway.

and who lives outside the the CBD, the poor or the rich? One nice think about the non-car day is that it forces every segment including the affluent, to make sure that public transit is capable of working when needed..

The further from the CBD you go the poorer.

Oddly, ours is the opposite of that, unless you get into the really rich, like bel-air, who have areas of mansions which occupy half a block. Places here stay till they fall apart, so if someone wants a new 4 br home, that's going to have to happen on the outskirts. On the other hand, the air's so bad in the CBD that that may be another reason the rich live out in places like malibu beach.

We have some few remaining older buildings in the central city that are heritage listed but developers get past the laws by demolishing the whole building except the facade, then attaching it to a 50 storey building out the back. It makes the city keep some character without stifling development.

San Francisco upgrades somewhat like that, perhaps because sprawl is not even an option. Otherwise, no one wants to put up a new building surrounded by older buildings, so new buildings only go up only when someone can afford to bulldoze an entire community, or some new area like the last wetland preserve in the region gets cleared for development.