 |
|
 |
|
Next: Non-Profit Tutor Service
|
| Author |
Message |
External

Since: Mar 05, 2004 Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:48 pm
Post subject: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped Archived from groups: alt>culture>african>american>issues, others (more info?)
|
|
|
"[Rice] discussed how her parents, now deceased, her teachers and the black
community engaged her in intellectual pursuits, such as theological debates,
piano playing, ballet, literature, and learning foreign languages as a young
child." In other words, back then "respectable" blacks "acted White."
"When people assume blacks or women are less capable, and, therefore say,
'lower the standards,' that's the killer. It's the worst thing you can do to
anyone."
'Lower standards' for blacks ripped
By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice says she supports "soft
affirmative action," but that it should never be associated with "lower
expectations" or "lower standards" for blacks and women.
"When people assume blacks or women are less capable, and, therefore
say, 'lower the standards,' that's the killer. It's the worst thing you can
do to anyone," Miss Rice, who is black, said in a lengthy television
interview on Armstrong Williams' show "On Point."
The interview will air 7 p.m. Sunday on the TV One network on D.C. Cable
Channel 60.
In the interview, Mr. Williams called Miss Rice "the most powerful woman
on earth." She did not disagree.
"I've been very fortunate. I've had a blessed life," she said, adding,
"I don't think race or gender have gotten in the way. But it doesn't mean
they haven't impacted my life."
As a former provost at Stanford University, Miss Rice has had experience
with affirmative action. Because of that, she says, President Bush sought
her opinions regarding the legality of affirmative-action programs at the
University of Michigan, which consider race for admission to its
undergraduate college as well as its law school and were the subject of a
lengthy court battle.
"I told him what I thought, which was that we shouldn't have quotas,
that I thought there were problems with the Michigan program, but that it
was important in my view that race be ... allowed to be considered a factor,
because race is a factor in American life. You can't ignore that," Miss Rice
said.
Asked to define how race should be considered a factor in college
admissions, Miss Rice replied, "I would call it 'soft affirmative action,'
or the ability to look at the total person and to recognize that race is a
factor in the life of that person. And so is the fact that the person came
from a small school or a large school or plays a piano or throws a football.
The taking [into] account of the whole person."
Miss Rice said she thinks that college admissions programs "work best
when they don't work by formula" but look at what an individual can
contribute and recognize that minorities can contribute diversity.
In a ruling in June, the Supreme Court preserved the law school's
affirmative-action policy by a one-vote margin. However, it said the
university's policy was too rigid. That program awarded admission points
based on race.
Mr. Bush had asked the high court to deem the programs unconstitutional.
Miss Rice said she thinks the president was correct to let the issue be
decided in the courts.
"I, personally, think the court came out in a very good place," she
said.
A significant part of the interview was taken up with questions and
responses concerning Miss Rice's growing up in Birmingham, Ala., which she
described as being "completely segregated" at the time.
She discussed how her parents, now deceased, her teachers and the black
community engaged her in intellectual pursuits, such as theological debates,
piano playing, ballet, literature, and learning foreign languages as a young
child.
Miss Rice, 49, said she grew up believing that she could achieve as much
as anyone else and that there were constant messages that black children
"might have to be twice as good" as whites to succeed.
"Twice as good meant 'don't assume people won't factor race in, and make
sure you're good enough that they can't factor race in,' " she said. >> Stay informed about: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Mar 05, 2004 Posts: 78
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:19 pm
Post subject: Re: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:48:36 -0800, "ίΕΠΕ§§" <na_da_.RemoveThis@spam.net> wrote:
> Asked to define how race should be considered a factor in college
>admissions, Miss Rice replied, "I would call it 'soft affirmative action,'
>or the ability to look at the total person and to recognize that race is a
>factor in the life of that person. And so is the fact that the person came
>from a small school or a large school or plays a piano or throws a football.
>The taking [into] account of the whole person."
What a load of horseshit. The piano player or athlete is rewarded for
being able to at least contribute something, even though I don't
believe that such talents should be considered in college admissions
but why should skin color be rewarded?
> Miss Rice said she thinks that college admissions programs "work best
>when they don't work by formula" but look at what an individual can
>contribute and recognize that minorities can contribute diversity.
What kind of contribution is diversity? Does it help qualified
students learn the subject matter more easily?
BroJack >> Stay informed about: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Mar 06, 2004 Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:36 am
Post subject: Re: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Like wow, Scooby; look what BroJack RemoveThis @windswept.net (BroJack) just
wrote!:
>On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:48:36 -0800, "ίΕΠΕ§§" <na_da_ RemoveThis @spam.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Miss Rice said she thinks that college admissions programs "work best
>>when they don't work by formula" but look at what an individual can
>>contribute and recognize that minorities can contribute diversity.
>
>What kind of contribution is diversity? Does it help qualified
>students learn the subject matter more easily?
I would be insulted if I were told that I was being admitted
just to be window-dressing. And of course "diversity" is just the
stalking horse, since no one thinks that adding more rednecks would
enhance the educational climate at colleges. And of course the whole
thing is a fraud, since historically all-minority schools are de facto
exempt. Can't get more diverse than 100% black, now can we?
--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
-- The Jam >> Stay informed about: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Feb 20, 2004 Posts: 4011
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:36 am
Post subject: Re: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
The Sanity Inspector <synapsid DeleteThis @THETRASHhotmail.com> wrote:
>Like wow, Scooby; look what BroJack DeleteThis @windswept.net (BroJack) just
>wrote!:
>
>>On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:48:36 -0800, "ίΕΠΕ§§" <na_da_ DeleteThis @spam.net> wrote:
>[...]
>>> Miss Rice said she thinks that college admissions programs "work best
>>>when they don't work by formula" but look at what an individual can
>>>contribute and recognize that minorities can contribute diversity.
>>
>>What kind of contribution is diversity? Does it help qualified
>>students learn the subject matter more easily?
>
> I would be insulted if I were told that I was being admitted
>just to be window-dressing. And of course "diversity" is just the
>stalking horse, since no one thinks that adding more rednecks would
>enhance the educational climate at colleges. And of course the whole
>thing is a fraud, since historically all-minority schools are de facto
>exempt. Can't get more diverse than 100% black, now can we?
Actually, most all-minority schools aren't these days "all minority".
The public institutions tend to be more diverse, of course:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt221.asp
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt218.asp
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org >> Stay informed about: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Mar 07, 2004 Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2004 12:05 pm
Post subject: Re: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Dirk" <checkthe.TakeThisOut@sig.com> wrote:
>[xposted groups snipped.]
>
>"The Sanity Inspector" <synapsid.TakeThisOut@THETRASHhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:g1ei40djvahvesr8mulff727o72ig2gu5i@4ax.com...
>
>> I would be insulted if I were told that I was being admitted
>> just to be window-dressing.
>
>Oh boy. Another retarded atl.general thread about affirmative action. I'm
>sure we'll all learn *so* much.
>
>There was, in contrast, a brilliantly illuminating thread on the subject in
>the Braves' newsgroup **. Posts are
>entitled "M.Schott dies-Reds Owner". Suggest you have a look.
Dirk, yer there and all, but, if you can't provide a link... Copy,
paste, reference and be done.
I got windows going up, down, everywhere and in every direction.
Got an opinion post it. Got somebody elses opinion that ya like, post
it.
You promote 153 different opinions that I didn't bother the waste of
looking through...? SPAM. Brilliant post.
All headers restored.
alt.culture.african.american.issues,atl.general,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.education,misc.education,alt.non.racism
All addresses summarily dismissed as spam.
Now to prevent THIS from being SPAM:
I THINK government enforced "affirmative action" is detrimental to GA
business and social interraction. I think it racially preferential and
a cause of racial friction, creating hatred between races with good
intentions. And that's GA.
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
(That thing Republicans don't understand. We're generating hatred in GA
by complying with what other people make laws to enforce. We deal with
that and this is the result. Straightforward, eh?) >> Stay informed about: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Mar 07, 2004 Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:25 am
Post subject: Re: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Dirk" <checkthe.DeleteThis@sig.com> wrote:
>"TheNIGHTCRAWLER" <Athome.DeleteThis@casual.com> wrote in message
>news:4050dfea.51711226@news.prodigy.net...
>
>> Dirk, yer there and all, but, if you can't provide a link... Copy,
>> paste, reference and be done.
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl808647288d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=ho1c40t8urj3mnednpvd17rc6nn70k02mo%404ax.com
>
>knock yerself out.
I did. Problems?
>
>> I got windows going up, down, everywhere and in every direction.
>>
>> Got an opinion post it. Got somebody elses opinion that ya like, post
>> it.
>>
>> You promote 153 different opinions that I didn't bother the waste of
>> looking through...? SPAM. Brilliant post.
>>
>> All headers restored.
>
>I don't care for crossposting. You can always put 'em back.
And I will. And have.
>
>> I THINK government enforced "affirmative action" is detrimental to GA
>> business and social interraction. I think it racially preferential and
>> a cause of racial friction, creating hatred between races with good
>> intentions. And that's GA.
>
>& I think you ought to read the thread. Particularly "mwt"'s contributions.
>Particularly the graf that reads:
Not interested in responding to other than what concept, saying,
proposal, or most importantly - opinion is put forth. I'm into that.
>
>"And every single minority *doesn't* need the help of AA, nor does
>every single one necessarily take advantage of it. But you're
>underestimating the extent of negative reinforcement and you're
>underestimating the extent of current discrimination. You're also
>*WAAAAY* overestimating the number of qualified whites who lose jobs
>to AA every year. You're also underestimating the ability of those
>whites to find another job."
Very entertaining with no content.
Other than say than saying AA 3 times, if you count WAAAY.
Another proven, dismal failure of Republican initiatives. Prohibition
went over like a lead balloon already.
There is real and valid reason for why that did not work. Shall we
discuss failure?
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
(I'm never nice. It isn't my disposition to do so,) >> Stay informed about: 'Lower standards' for blacks ripped |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|