In the US recently, legislation was passed that banned the use of race as a determining factor in college admission(known as afffirmative action). To you agree or disagree with the idea of affirmative action?
Do I agree in the new legislation passing or do I agree on the cause of the legislation (segregation) being true?
General, I mean do you agree with the idea of thje legislation, which is not seregation, it is favoring the minorities because they ARE miorities
Entschuldigen mein rechliches Englisch! Of course I agree. Minorities are part of a nation as well as any other people. An African-American, a Mexican-American, a homosexual... all of them are as American as any other born in the USA and the US declaration of independence clearly says that all men have been created equal, doesn't it? I think it is too late to pass this legislation... however, it's better late than never...
Wait a minute. Just last week in Michegan--they passed a resolution that FAVORS allowing more minorities being accepted into their Law Schools just because they are minorities. _______________________________________________ What happened to getting what you deserve on M-E-R-I-T. In other words--what happened to getting what you want through H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K? ________________________________________________ I disagree with this decision 100% and my disagreement isn't because they are allowing in more minorities into this school--but BECAUSE they are being thrust into that school over someone else who made BETTER GRADES than they did--and that is pure Bollocks! OK--an example: Caucasion male who is an A+ student with a history of scores being nothing but perfect--not being allowed to attend that school because a "minority" who maybe had a GPA of 95% or even as low as 75%, is so given their chance to attend this Institution just because they are not Caucasion, and are ((In the case of the Law School in Michigan)) given from 10 to 20 extra "points" added onto their scholastic GPA records--to have them automatically become "equal" with that Caucasion student--who in turn--WORKED for the A+ GPA they had and in their working for their A+'s--had absolutely nothing to do with race or being prejudiced. Now that this Caucasion student is NOT allowed to attend this Institution--because they now have a person who isn't as highly qualified to be there in the first place--is nothing but pure crap!!! Now--i'm saying that any minority should be allowed to do what they please and go learn what they can in any learning institution they so choose to attend but--to do it based on their GPA score and NOT by race. If that minority had been the one with the A+ GPA and that Caucasion student had been the one with the lower GPA--then by all means--that minority should be the one to be able to attend that Institution BECAUSE they EARNED that which they recieved and were NOT handed it to them on a silver platter--like what is now happening. It's disgusting to say the least.
I agree with Carl to some point. Everybody must have the same oportunities for work, study or anything else. But they have to get it by hard work. Totally agree. But I do not think that law was passed to get minority and mediocre students into the school, and leaving the white 'good' students without a place... This law was passed to have hard-work students (no matter if they're black, yellow or purple) into the schools instead of having only white (and most of them, mediocre students). I wish that law will be able to get all the good students in the schools they deserve. There are a lot of farms and factories where the mediocres, white and others can work. I do not think that mediocre students have been admitted into school for pity, leaving white students without a place. I'm not saying this didn't happen, but sure it is not the majority of cases. USA doesn't have a good reputation in that respects... but fortunately, thanks to those laws, everything's changing. We do not want another racist USA or another Third Reich, do we?
Good post Fried and I agree with it as well as if a student is a hardworking student--then I think liberties can be made in certain cases. By all means--it doesn't matter to me what their skin color is--if they are good--then I want them representing me if I need them to do so. Back in 1992-1993--the man who represented me in an auto accident case--was colored and I COULD have chosen someone of my skin color but--I know this man and he gets the majority of his clientele--from caucasions and he is an excellent lawyer. A few years ago--he became a judge--which I am glad because he more than deserves his position. To get into a good institution--one can;t be a mediocre--unless there is space to get them in there. What this law has done--was to make it unfair to a certai group of people who DID have the better scores--so that since a "quota" has to be filled--the minorities were selected--which is crap. Case in point: Lets say that you have room to admit 100 people into this institution--and 300 people of different races apply. The way it SHOULD be done ((to be fair about it)) is simply getting the 100 students with the highest grades--regardless of what their color may be. If it so happens that 80 of the 100 are Caucasion and were picked to attend--and the rest were minorities--the 20 that is left)) then I sure hope that the big range difference between the races represented--were at that number only because that those were the top-scoring students from the groups who applied at that institution. I would feel absolutely the same way--had it been that 80 of the students picked--were minorities and the rest were Caucasion. It simply is not the right thing to do in denying a person with the better scores--their chance to learn at that higher institution just to let someone else attend who did not score as high. There definately is something wrong about that.
Definately agree, Carl! But do you know why did I say all what I said? Because of the things I watched at the USA Ambassy in Mexico City. I was extremely mad at what I saw. First, you have to pay for making an appointment. You go there for the appointment and they 'examine' you and tell you whether you can get or can't get a VISA. If you can, you pay for the VISA and if you can't you lost the money of the appointment... My family, some friends and I went some two weeks ago to ask for a VISA since we need it to go to a concert in Chicago by half-July. My boyfriend, with a Mexican passport but blond and blue-eyed, with a nice University certificate was given the VISA immediately. Two of my Mexican friends, who look more like Mexicans (darker hair and skin), even if they had the same University certificates were not allowed the VISA. Don't you think that's racism?! And now, my family case is not about racism, since we are all white and have clear-eyes. It could be obvious that the racist guys who made the interviews would give us the VISA as easily as it was given to my boyfriend but OH surprise! My mother, with her Republique Française passport was rejected. My brother Wilhelm, my sister Kerstin and I with our Bundesrepublik Deutschland passports were rejected as well under the claims that we do not have a stable job, house, income nor studies. So, we all are suspicious of wanting to radicate in the USA... All what I saw there was segregation of every kind possible, discrimination, xenophobia... Truly a pity!
Friedrich--I cannot argue with you there as I have never had to deal with any Embassy's except well--tho not an Embassy but--it was the local German Consulate, that I have dealt with. So as I have never dealt with any countries Embassy's, I do not know what goes on at them nor do I know how they select who they give passports for nor do I know any of their policies. ((Shrugging shoulders)) because I do not know the inner workings of these places nor have any knowledge of thier rules and regulations. Sorry I cannot help you with any advice.
Personally I think any system that specifies the number of people who should be allowed to do something according to race is fundamentally racist. But then again to a degree it is necessary, if universities are descriminating against ethnic minorities then you need some measures to prevent that. That is why I like our system, it does not allow applicants race to be known to the universities to whom applications are made. Unfortunatly they do give post-codes and with New Labours war on the middle class if you live in a slum you are more likely to get a place than if you live in a middle class area, there are no quotas but all the same it happens. Anyhow, as I was saying I disagree with so called 'positive descrimination' in theory but in practice it can be necessary if the institutions are being descriminatory without it. Then again, I know loads of people from ethnic minorities who are damn intelligent and bound to do well, they prove that it is possible, it is just a shame that people from ethnic minorities who do not do well claim it is because of descrimination whilst caucasians who fair just as badly do not have the option, hence whilst if a white kid wastes his education and grows up to be an idiot, people say he did just that. If a kid from an ethnic minority does the same we are told he was descriminated against. Frankly I think that it is rather sad that kids from all ethnic groups (caucasians included) act like complete fools and then when they wind up livinging a miserable life or causing suffering to others, they blame the rest of the world.
Hows about looking at it from another view, disabled war vets perhaps rather than race. Should they too be able to jump the odd queue? If so then why not the coloured guy who may just be a vet, something that perhaps brings this more into an area we could understand more perhaps?
Welcome back. I think your analogy is rather iffy though, what most people are saying I think is why should someone stand a better chance of getting into higher education than perhapse more qualified individuals just on the basis of being from an ethnic minority? By your analogy, that is rather like suggesting that a it be made easier for legless veterans to get jobs as message courriers. If it is made easier for a veteran who has no legs (analogous to an underqualified member of an ethnic minority) than for non piedestrially challenged individuals (who are in this case 'better qualified' for the job) surley that is unfair and rather pointless. If however the veteran still has his legs (i.e. is equally qualified to the other applicants) he should have an equal chance of getting the job. Does that make sense? I think I see another of those increasingly contrived metaphores coming up, like the barn door we had once.
Stefan, it sounds like sense, but Ill have to read it 3 or 4 times before I even consider agreeing....
