SCotUS to Look at Affirmative Action (Kind Of)Follow

Oh, ok. I use Chrome, so all is well. You people should really use a better browser.

Luckily you don't have to since the exact same extension exists for Chrome.

I noticed this, too. Wasn't sure what had happened.

Ah, last time I tried Chrome I couldn't find it. That said, unless I see a good reason to switch to Chrome I'm fine with firefox.

I don't think I've ever gotten beyond 600mb even with 30+ tabs and multiple windows open.

I don't know about Gbaji, but I think what Texas is doing is a good start to a proper AA solution. Texas's 10% rule helps minorities (who are statistically in poorer performing areas) without directly doing so because they are a minority. So by helping all students in a poor performing area, you help the non-minority students who may be stuck in the same situation equally.

Texas's solution isn't perfect, and it seems to be that the State universities and colleges don't have enough space to hold the top 10% plus anyone else (they said 81% of UT-Austin's enrollment in 08 were top 10% students).

The problem with the 10% rule seems to be more capacity than true discrimination. Just not enough room to let everyone in. Maybe it's also creating a mentality where people are settling for a State university rather than shooting higher, and taking a spot that may have otherwise been open for someone lower than the 10% cutoff?

Ignoring the problems pointed out in the cartoon on page 1 doesn't make them go away, either. I dismissed it because I believe it wouldn't solve the problems, but would instead perpetuate racism against people of color while "eliminating" "racism" against whites.

American society, economic policies, & politics were all created by white people for the enrichment of white people & that is still perpetuated today despite AA. ONCE AGAIN: I will always take policies like the one mentioned in the OP, that does not use race as a factor in admissions yet still increases diversity, over policies that do use race as a factor PROVIDED THEY INCREASE DIVERSITY.

Stopping AA will not increase diversity. It'd need to be replaced with something else.

Edited, Mar 9th 2012 1:57am by Omegavegeta

I'm sure that'll happen just after we've won the War on Drugs, and just shortly before the glorious victory in the War on Terror.

Well it's an ideal to work toward and likely won't ever be achieved. That's true of most ideals, but it sounds like if Omega has his way he'll always get to play the victim and that ensures that the ideal can never be reached. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I just don't see how making skin color an issue helps make skin color not be an issue. But then, my skin is a different color than his so I guess my opinion doesn't count.

It's "ensure", Elinda. Ensure.

Because diversity is beneficial to society. A diverse workplace or school has better decision making, improved problem solving, greater creativity, more innovation, is more marketable to a wider range of people, & more successful especially in a global economy. Not to mention the fact that exposing "close minded" folks to other people of different backgrounds & cultures reduces racism & helps reach the goals of equality.

I want to live in a country where all men are created equal & aren't judged by their skin color, sexual orientation, age, gender, or socio-economic status. That's the goal of AA- not to disenfranchise white folks but to enforce diversity in areas where inequities exist.

While I think you're getting at the idea, I really hate how you phrased it. Equality is about treating all that is equal as equal and all that is different as different directly to the vector of that difference.

Until after the civil rights movement in the 1960s the vast majority of African Americans could not get a bank mortgage for a house in most of the US. They were automatically ruled out. I don't know whether this was a specific law, or simply bank policy. But the economic consequences of this was severe. No bank loan usually meant no house ownership, and cut off the most normal, easy way for a poor or middle class individual or family to eventually acquire a large, significant asset. In hard times, whites could second-mortgage their homes, or sell them and downgrade, in the event of job loss, major illness, old age or any catastrophe. Many, if not most small businesses are started with a loan against the family home. This route was denied blacks. In fact, business loans and business finance third parties such as accountants, to blacks probably went the same way as mortgages.

I think most cash strapped people can tell you how hard it is to save money in the absence of forced savings like mortgage payments. And what was the point of blacks saving anyway? No Investment trust, financial advisor or investment banker was going to handle their money to invest it in anything that would accrue growth or significant interest, either, until after the 60s. The best a black person could do was squirrel cash away for a rainy day and pray that the starting capital of that cash would cover something.

To AA or not AA? Whatever the answer, some minorities are starting from so far behind it's not funny. Where would you be today, if your grandparents or parents were not allowed to accrue assets and savings, or start a small business, even if they tried?