Yes or no to affirmative action?

[Aztek72]

The school funding system is screwed up, especially here in Massachusetts. Since becoming governor, Mitt Romney's strategy is to slash funding everywhere - veteran's programs, rehab and detox centers, after school activities, YMCA's, etc. Erstwhile, fees have gone up all across the board. There's something really wrong here.

His education restructuring plan has left a wake of layoffs in schools across the state. I've seen the disparity of quality between ghetto schools in Boston metro and the urban satellite cities of Lowell, Lawrence, Brockton, Springfield and those located in wealthier suburban neighborhoods. Administrators are hamstrung by funding and left no other options than to have lax requirements for teachers they hire. To compound the issue, special programs like daycare, youth programs, conflict mediation, hate crime awareness, teenage parents-assistance, etc. are a necessity at these schools placing further strain on the budget, principals and teachers.

I agree about rich parents damaging their children. Lots of rich people remedy any situation by throwing money at it or employing their 'connections.' Even if you put your child through the best private school doesn't guarantee success. Children coming from esteemed, well-off backgrounds have the added burden of the omnipresent pressure to succeed. Of course this isn't the norm, but I'm sure it's fairly common practice among the wealthy. I consider fairly successful - wonderful family, six-digit income, unyielding support from family, friends, community and I owe that entirely to my upbringing in the ghetto. To thank those who've me along the way, I volunteer my time at the Big Brother, Big Sister youth counseling programs, donate a large chunk of my check to shelters, centers for veterans, the Jimmy fund, after-school music programs.

I'd like to close by saluting possibly the most undervalued and thankless of professions - teachers. Cliche maybe, but year after year teachers deal with handfuls of kids who don't see the meaning of doing homework and jaded instructors who've seen their work go to waste time and time again. Don't think your hard work has gone unnoticed.

:A BIG THANK YOU!:

[maxI30t]

I vote no on affirmative action, I really take it as a slap in the face, like the government saying oh minorities can't measure up so here we'll give them a handout. Sure heres a free ticket to an all expense paid college. No thanks.

Basically what I'm saying is that if I really want something I'll be damned if I haven't put out 110% of my effort to get it. Nothing in this life is ever truley free (affirmative action just leads to complacency in my eyes, and I am part of the minority).

I agree. Not only does it insults someones pride and ego, but also they're level of intelligences. Just another form of"White mans burden" because we are part of the minorities they feel they need to look out for us. i grew up in a ghetto and i think the problem is not so much the teachers and parent(s). but the environment/area the kids are in. i was born in a suburban town in california where the pop. was mainly middle class. everywhere i went i was treated like a second-class citizen. so eventually i sort of accepted that stereo type and believed this is where i belong. i wasn't smarter than the kid next to me, and that i probably wouldn't accomplish anything in life other becoming the leader of some rebel gang. so i think the root of the problem is the atomsphere the kids are in.

ZERO i don't like the idea of someone giving me a break or "tossin' me a bone", but if the gov. wants to pay for my college tuition i have no problems there...

[MaineExport]

As far as parents, yes, that's what I meant by the parents failing too. But then if it was up to me, people would have to qualify to be a parent before they are allowed to have kids. While I would hate to strip away the joys of parenthood, too few understand the responsibilties. And it would have very little to do with wealth. Rich people can be bad parents too.

Think about it...

You need a license to drive (although, in California that doesn't mean much lately), you need a license to have a dog in most areas, you need a license to catch fish and hunt deer... but any idiot can have a baby.

While I totally agree that only qualified parents should be "allowed" to have babies, there are some major issues with that kind of government interference. First of all... that is the government, once again, putting their nose where it doesn't belong. Also, with most things that the government makes illegal... there will always be law breakers. What are you going to do with the kids that are born to unlicensed parents?

I know you were being funny... but the point is... the government needs to have less of a hands on approach. This goes for affirmative action as well.

[89240sx]

The majority of teachers I had to deal with were uncaring , unmotivated and self indulgent. And don't give me that BS they have to deal with a lot!

Because they KNEW that when they entered that profession, I have no sympathy for crummy teachers and the majority are crummy.

[Aztek72]

I'm blessed to have nothing but wonderful teachers, got nothing but love for them. There were a few teachers who seemed indifferent, but they were few and far between. The teachers in Dorchester made me the man I am today.

[krazy skwerel]

I dislike student teachers, not so much them but the fact that they are sent in and the real teacher will leave. I can't count how many times I got messed up because some student teacher was talking out their *** and didn't know what they were teaching.

[C-Kwik]

ya but come on man.... making parents qualify to have children :rolleyes that is sortof a nazi attitude and It is also not the freedom that america is built upon.

As I said, I don't care to take away the joys of parenting. But it's almost necessary. I am being somewhat facetious about this, but more or less making a point about the reality of the world we live in now.

I've always said...Stupid laws are written for stupid people. Without stupid people, we would have no need for stupid laws. But reality is that we need to be governed in order to maintain a civil society. We are supposedly the most evolved species on Earth, yet we are the most self-destructive. Not to mention we are starting to take the world and everything on it down with us.

But to clarify, I am not saying everyone else is stupid. I am one of them. As are we all in one way or another. It's sad really. We just don't live in a perfect world...

[APEXi240]

Agreed with everything said.

The bottom line for me is...anyone can do well in school, its how hard they try, not their ethical background. A poor black student can be validictorian, and get all A's in school, if he applies himself, regardless of whether or not the high school is good. It would actually be easier than going to a properly funded school.

If I went to the highschool in my town, I know for a fact I would have been number 1 in my class, but instead I went to private school and was number 20 something. Its all about how that student applies themself.

I got 1160 on my SATs, first try, hungover. I figured it was good enough.

[jacob360]

When I got laid off a couple years ago and went back to school again (community college) I was thinking about becoming a math teacher, but more for the chance to help kids along this difficult path.

I ended up getting an associates in automotive.

Maybe I'll go back to school again someday.

[89240sx]

As I said, I don't care to take away the joys of parenting. But it's almost necessary. I am being somewhat facetious about this, but more or less making a point about the reality of the world we live in now.

I've always said...Stupid laws are written for stupid people. Without stupid people, we would have no need for stupid laws. But reality is that we need to be governed in order to maintain a civil society. We are supposedly the most evolved species on Earth, yet we are the most self-destructive. Not to mention we are starting to take the world and everything on it down with us.

But to clarify, I am not saying everyone else is stupid. I am one of them. As are we all in one way or another. It's sad really. We just don't live in a perfect world...

It isnt even close to necessary! Don't you think society has a large impact on the way kids are turning out also? There is no "easy" fix to this issue and forcing people to qualify and get a license to have children isn't going to solve anything.

And this is also a part that the government needs to keep their nose OUT of. We do not need the government forcing themselves into our personal issues..... that is not what they are there for.

[89240sx]

Agreed with everything said.

The bottom line for me is...anyone can do well in school, its how hard they try, not their ethical background. A poor black student can be validictorian, and get all A's in school, if he applies himself, regardless of whether or not the high school is good. It would actually be easier than going to a properly funded school.

If I went to the highschool in my town, I know for a fact I would have been number 1 in my class, but instead I went to private school and was number 20 something. Its all about how that student applies themself.

I got 1160 on my SATs, first try, hungover. I figured it was good enough.

Disagree completely! It does have to do with how the student applies himself but you have to take into consideration......how can a student fully concentrate and focus and apply himself in a poorly funded school with bad education and poor teachers? You can get validictorian in a poorly funded school and still be below average. This is the type of attitude that keeps the classes apart and the poorer schools poorer and the more well funded schools always well funded, this will always keep a seperation of classes and a poor educational system.

[NY94J30]

Just to clear up what may in large measure be a semantic difference. AA legally is predicated upon a compelling interest in diversity, not in racial equity, or in remedying past societal transgressions against minorities. This is the logic of Bakke and its current progeny.

[89240sx]

Just to clear up what may in large measure be a semantic difference. AA legally is predicated upon a compelling interest in diversity, not in racial equity, or in remedying past societal transgressions against minorities. This is the logic of Bakke and its current progeny.

Ok, I see what you are trying to say but then again maybe AA is a situation of "good intent...bad result!" so in this issue do we allow the bad result of good intentions to continue?

[C-Kwik]

It isnt even close to necessary! Don't you think society has a large impact on the way kids are turning out also? There is no "easy" fix to this issue and forcing people to qualify and get a license to have children isn't going to solve anything.

And this is also a part that the government needs to keep their nose OUT of. We do not need the government forcing themselves into our personal issues..... that is not what they are there for.

Well, I see you are somewhat of an idealist here. And as idealistic as I like to be, I do live in the real world. If we could self govern, why would we need government? Take for example DUI laws. If all of us could manage to control ourselves, use designated drivers, not drink when you know you have to drive, etc, etc, would we have ever needed DUI laws?

Of course society has a lot to do with it. But consider that society does not change by itself. The people in it change. The way we are brought up affects the way society will be as we become a bigger part of it. There is a much bigger picture here to look at.

Limiting the raising of children to those who are qualified and would limit the "bad seeds" of our society and perhaps raise the bar. Of course applying this effectively would not be realistic, but again, it was only to make a point.

[89240sx]

I can see this is a simple difference of opinion and you are not more realistic only that you are for more government control.

[C-Kwik]

Just to clear up what may in large measure be a semantic difference. AA legally is predicated upon a compelling interest in diversity, not in racial equity, or in remedying past societal transgressions against minorities. This is the logic of Bakke and its current progeny.

Would you like to translate this back to English? You may be a smart guy, but sounding smart and being smart are two different things. If I wanted to read more college word crap, I would have actually went.

But to comment on what you said, yes, it does have to do with diversifying society. Whether it be racial, of gender, sexual preference, etc, it focuses on a level of equality. Look around the workforce. You'll find a very high percentage of upper management and executives of companies are white males. AA to some extent is ideal in tackling this issue since it is a start to help put more minorities, especially the less fortunate, on a level playing field. It's not like we can just take an African American Female high school drop out and throw her into a CEO position at some large corporation to appease diversity and expect it to work. It goes much beyond school acceptance. To diversify the workforce more evenly, we must create a bigger pool of diverse workers to choose from. A more diverse college graduating class is going to be just that, especially in more prestegious positions.

If only we did live in a perfect world. Race, gender, sexual preference, physical appearance, etc. would not be an issue. Where the solution lies is complex and can be somewhat subjective. And it can vary by circumstance as well. Unfortunately, the government has a limited amount of control and can only work us towards it in baby steps. Too much change at one time would be too problematic.

And does anyone else here not know who Bakke and its progeny is? :pface

[NY94J30]

Would you like to translate this back to English? You may be a smart guy, but sounding smart and being smart are two different things. If I wanted to read more college word crap, I would have actually went.

But to comment on what you said, yes, it does have to do with diversifying society. Whether it be racial, of gender, sexual preference, etc, it focuses on a level of equality. Look around the workforce. You'll find a very high percentage of upper management and executives of companies are white males. AA to some extent is ideal in tackling this issue since it is a start to help put more minorities, especially the less fortunate, on a level playing field. It's not like we can just take an African American Female high school drop out and throw her into a CEO position at some large corporation to appease diversity and expect it to work. It goes much beyond school acceptance. To diversify the workforce more evenly, we must create a bigger pool of diverse workers to choose from. A more diverse college graduating class is going to be just that, especially in more prestegious positions.

If only we did live in a perfect world. Race, gender, sexual preference, physical appearance, etc. would not be an issue. Where the solution lies is complex and can be somewhat subjective. And it can vary by circumstance as well. Unfortunately, the government has a limited amount of control and can only work us towards it in baby steps. Too much change at one time would be too problematic.

And does anyone else here not know who Bakke and its progeny is? :pface

Bro,

If you don't understand the commment I made you would not understand the Supreme Court decisions which have forme the bases of AA.

Bakke is Regents of the University of California v. Bakke , the 1978 Supreme Court case; its progeny are: Gratz, et al. v. Bollinger, et al., Grutter v. Bollinger, et al ,cases that affirmed its major holding, i.e. that diversity was a compelling interest.

My only point in the previous post was that AA exists within the confines of these legal decisions, so to understand AA you must understand the holdings of these cases:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7...1.pdf

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7...6.pdf

And let me be the first to appologize for not speaking down to you.

[C-Kwik]

I don't really jump into reading Supreme Court decisions in my spare time. Understanding them is a different thing all together. I read enough crap at work about law and it all makes perfect sense.

I more or less made my comment since you are using a lot of "big" words. I deal with attorneys on a daily basis and the ones that use big words are usually blowing smoke up my ***. In either case it helps to make a point to argue your point so that others understand you. Thats my only point about that.

As far as Supreme court opinions and findings, maybe I'll read past the first page when I have a lot of spare time. And I'm sure these cases you mention have a lot of bearing as to how AA is applied. And I would agree diversity is a compelling interest. It's a good first step to integrating society so that we are accepting of all the differences in all of us.

And as a last point, while the Supreme courts do make decisions of how different laws are interpreted in our society, it's important to look outside the confines of law to look for a good solution. Not to say the law should be broken, but just to keep an open mind to explore all ideas and possibilities. Even laws can be wrong.

[APEXi240]

Disagree completely! It does have to do with how the student applies himself but you have to take into consideration......how can a student fully concentrate and focus and apply himself in a poorly funded school with bad education and poor teachers? You can get validictorian in a poorly funded school and still be below average. This is the type of attitude that keeps the classes apart and the poorer schools poorer and the more well funded schools always well funded, this will always keep a seperation of classes and a poor educational system.

I disagree with you completely! First off, what keeps poor schools underfunded are community, state, and federal funding...not me believing a child can achieve wherever he goes. My beliefs don't cause poor schools, I don't understand what you are trying to say there.

Hillside (town I live in) schools are Abbott schools. They are 70% minorities (probably more now, that stat is a couple years old). The valedictorian (as well as the top 10 other students) can basically go where they want, and have...Hillside High students have gone on to Princeton, and others have gone to Rahway State Penitentiary. Its how they apply themselves. They may not be going to Harvard or Yale, but then again no one in my brother's school did (a very rich school in the same county...over 90% white). The same can be said for schools in Newark, Elizabeth, and Irvington (which have some of the worst schools in the state).

[NY94J30]

1) I don't really jump into reading Supreme Court decisions in my spare time. Understanding them is a different thing all together. I read enough crap at work about law and it all makes perfect sense.

2) I more or less made my comment since you are using a lot of "big" words. I deal with attorneys on a daily basis and the ones that use big words are usually blowing smoke up my ***. In either case it helps to make a point to argue your point so that others understand you. Thats my only point about that.

3) As far as Supreme court opinions and findings, maybe I'll read past the first page when I have a lot of spare time. And I'm sure these cases you mention have a lot of bearing as to how AA is applied. And I would agree diversity is a compelling interest. It's a good first step to integrating society so that we are accepting of all the differences in all of us.

4) And as a last point, while the Supreme courts do make decisions of how different laws are interpreted in our society, it's important to look outside the confines of law to look for a good solution. Not to say the law should be broken, but just to keep an open mind to explore all ideas and possibilities. Even laws can be wrong.

1) I don't expect people to read SC opinions for fun; however, to truly understand AA you must read them. Many people were making erroneous comments w/o an understanding of the bases of AA - that was my point.

2) The words you call big, I would call concise. I suppose I could have said based on instead of "predicated" or the cases following instead of "progeny" - that is more wordy, you see my point? When you are writing for someone else to read, brevity (writing briefly) is key.

3) These cases do not have a lot of bearing on how AA is applied, they are how AA is to be applied. And the compelling government interest in diversity is not my feeling, it is the Court's rationale for defeating equal protection.

4) What you are advocating (arguing for) is judicial activism, which I think is a big part of AA in the Court's rulings or any compelling interest balancing case. The social impact is discussed extensively in the AA cases.