Good post Doug. However I'll reiterate anytime race is a factor it's racism
in one of it's many forms and only serves to perpetuate the problem. This
is not the only form of bias but it is, without doubt, the worst one.

As long as any form of racism is practiced in any form by an person or any
group it will continue to be a festering sore in our nation. Changing the
target audience does not rid us of racism. It just eventually breeds yet
one more group imbued with hatred.

A good example is the continued exclusion of a fairly large portion of our
population from full citizenship. No not women and the draft this time
although that change is long overdue. Rather I refer to our long term
apartheid system.
Equality will never get a chance to 'long endure' until it exists. It won't
exist until those created equal are no longer made unequal by acts of law,
no matter how well disguised. Equality won't exist until 'decent, caring'
people cease to support it any way, shape, or form and find efforts to the
contrary 'offensive and unacceptable.'

We've come a long way baby . . .but we ain't there yet!

M.



"DSK" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

Racism is racism is racism. It matters not what direction or what
circumstance. I see no difference between those who would put a person
in
school based on their being 'the right color' than one who would keep a
person out based on their being 'the wrong color'.

Well, you just aren't looking at the situation realistically. It is not
racism
at all, it is rationing.

Fact- there are only so many places for students at colleges.
Fact- students vary *widely* in brainpower, athletic skill, and other
achievements.
Fact- getting a degree is a big step up in future prospects

So, how does one decide which students get in and which ones don't? It
might be
fun to simply dump all prospective college applicants into a big pit and
let
them fight it out... the survivors get into school. But that would not
pick the
smartest, would it?

In the past, colleges have been entirely composed of rich WASP males
(except for
the Jewish & Catholic colleges). The main requirement was the ability to
pay.

Our society recognizes that people outside this limited circle can make
great
contributions, so we like to try and let in students that have some
prospect of
making advances in the sciences. Smart & motivated kids, in other words.

Now factor in that all high schools are not created equal, and you might
see the
picture... let in kid A who is from a poor school but has great grades,
fine
recommendations, and mediocre test scores; or kid B from a whitebread
suburban
high school with equally good grades, recommendations slanted by family
connections, and test scores that are the product of a high-dollar seminar
on
'How To Maximize Your SAT'? Or should we dump both kids and go with kids C
& D
who are both dumb as stumps but are scions of politically powerful &
wealthy
families?

There is no level playing field. Some kids are going to get left out. It
has
been proven beyond a doubt that without some type of affirmative action
programs, minority students get left out no matter how promising they
are...
unless they are football or basketball stars...


It's just another case
of supporting a pesonal definition 'lesser evil' and is, therefore,
simply a
case of perpetuating evil

Another illogical and unsupportable statement. Where do you get this
stuff?

Higher education is a valuable resource. We have to determine a rational &
positive means of distributing that asset. Nothing "evil" about it... just
an
attempt to be fair, but as always, the ones left out are crying foul.

Regards- Doug King

If they don't accept public money it's a non issue.

But as for snooty schools that do accept public money I'll start with
Bezerkley but also tag both ends of the alphabet with Annapolis and West
Point. Not sure why? It isn't their football teams.

M.



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
No, but if you look in the mirror, you'll see one standing behind you.

The ones that don't accept public money. I'll let you do the research.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:34:42 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Really? You mean all those snooty schools aren't where
the liberals hang out? Damn... I shoulda gone somewhere
else.

Let me ask it again. What are "those snooty schools that
[do] not allow minorities"? Which schools were you talking about? A
couple
of examples will do. Seen any unicorns lately?

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Yeh, but Bezerkley chicks can be hot stuff.. dated three of them
(disclaimer: not at the same time)

"Michael" wrote in message
...
If they don't accept public money it's a non issue.

But as for snooty schools that do accept public money I'll start with
Bezerkley but also tag both ends of the alphabet with Annapolis and West
Point. Not sure why? It isn't their football teams.

M.



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
No, but if you look in the mirror, you'll see one standing behind you.

The ones that don't accept public money. I'll let you do the research.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:34:42 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Really? You mean all those snooty schools aren't where
the liberals hang out? Damn... I shoulda gone somewhere
else.

Let me ask it again. What are "those snooty schools that
[do] not allow minorities"? Which schools were you talking about? A
couple
of examples will do. Seen any unicorns lately?

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Michael wrote:

....However I'll reiterate anytime race is a factor it's racism
in one of it's many forms

Can't argue with that... tautology.

... and only serves to perpetuate the problem.

Not so IMHO. The problem (with respect to college admissions) is
people's attitudes about the way race is scored on the big card. It's a
matter of perception.

.... This
is not the only form of bias but it is, without doubt, the worst one.

The worst one? Surely there are worse situations... I'd suggest that all
my grandfather's factory-owning buddies who smugly said (but never in
mixed company) that they would never hire a black or an asian, and that
the gov't could never force them to, was a much worse situation. BTW
this was in New England in the 1970s, not the south in the pre civil
rights era.



As long as any form of racism is practiced in any form by an person or any
group it will continue to be a festering sore in our nation.

Agreed, but it could be worse. Even with the talk about 'hate crime'
lynching is at an all-time low. And we don't have the caste system
(although I suspect that the Bush/Cheney team would enact one if they
could).


.... Changing the
target audience does not rid us of racism. It just eventually breeds yet
one more group imbued with hatred.

Well, since it is a question of allocating a scarce resource (admission
to higher education), the question of 'hatred' is really just a matter
of the losers insisting that it's not fair (fair being defined as 'when
their side wins').



A good example is the continued exclusion of a fairly large portion of our
population from full citizenship. No not women and the draft this time
although that change is long overdue. Rather I refer to our long term
apartheid system.
Equality will never get a chance to 'long endure' until it exists. It won't
exist until those created equal are no longer made unequal by acts of law,
no matter how well disguised. Equality won't exist until 'decent, caring'
people cease to support it any way, shape, or form and find efforts to the
contrary 'offensive and unacceptable.'

We've come a long way baby . . .but we ain't there yet!

Human nature being what it is, I suspect we will never be there.

Having been peripherally involved in admissions committee work for
graduate programs (in a field where a higher degree is a REALLY good
meal ticket, almost a guarantee of $100K year + start), I have seen
first hand that trying to be fair is very difficult... and justifying it
to the losers is pointless. They are going to be mad because they are
left out, no matter what method was used.

DSK

THAT is a truism. But for me it was back in the 70's

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Yeh, but Bezerkley chicks can be hot stuff.. dated three of them
(disclaimer: not at the same time)

"Michael" wrote in message
...
If they don't accept public money it's a non issue.

But as for snooty schools that do accept public money I'll start with
Bezerkley but also tag both ends of the alphabet with Annapolis and West
Point. Not sure why? It isn't their football teams.

M.



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
No, but if you look in the mirror, you'll see one standing behind you.

The ones that don't accept public money. I'll let you do the research.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:34:42 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Really? You mean all those snooty schools aren't where
the liberals hang out? Damn... I shoulda gone somewhere
else.

Let me ask it again. What are "those snooty schools that
[do] not allow minorities"? Which schools were you talking about? A
couple
of examples will do. Seen any unicorns lately?

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Me too.. well, mostly.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
THAT is a truism. But for me it was back in the 70's

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Yeh, but Bezerkley chicks can be hot stuff.. dated three of them
(disclaimer: not at the same time)

"Michael" wrote in message
...
If they don't accept public money it's a non issue.

But as for snooty schools that do accept public money I'll start with
Bezerkley but also tag both ends of the alphabet with Annapolis and
West
Point. Not sure why? It isn't their football teams.

M.



"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
No, but if you look in the mirror, you'll see one standing behind
you.

The ones that don't accept public money. I'll let you do the
research.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:34:42 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Really? You mean all those snooty schools aren't where
the liberals hang out? Damn... I shoulda gone somewhere
else.

Let me ask it again. What are "those snooty schools that
[do] not allow minorities"? Which schools were you talking about?
A
couple
of examples will do. Seen any unicorns lately?

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

"Michael" wrote in message
...
LBJ took the information sent to him from the Turner Joy and used it as a
pretext to start a war.

As did we all. Again, Ike's plan was to make N/S Vietnam like E/W Germany
so that capitalism would win the scheduled reunification election but the
Diems had diverted the aid intended to achieve that and we had Buddists
torching themselves in protest. The CIA, et al warned JFK he'd have to
whack Diem quickly for Ike's plan to succeed but. as always, he wavered and
did nothing til it was too late and polls were showing commies by a
landslide. Then he went to Dallas leaving McNamara, Bunker and other Whiz
Kids to contrive the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

JFK had ordered a complete troop and adviser withdrawal. LBJ reversed
that.
JFK did not rule out the use of the National Guard, that was LBJ once
again.
That war was Lyndon's War pure and simple. All those names on that
monument
in Washington? Because of one meglomaniac.

I have a saying: "Never attribute to malace that which can be explained by
stupidity." I believe that applies to LBJ in this case. Yes, he did start
the war but, as you say, based on reports from Turner Joy, an incident
contrived by McNamara and Bunker to get presidential, congressional and
public support for an adventure doomed to fail from its inception. Then he
escalated it - again based on reports (disinformation) given him via
McNamara and Bunker from their hand-picked yes-men. JFK's whiz kids duped
us into that war. Do we blame JFK for hiring them or LBJ for keeping them?


LBJ is not someone the Democrat party should point to with pride.

You're right! He was almost as bad as Reagan.

By the by. The Turner Joy is the main tourist attraction in Bremerton, WA.
It was a sop to the area when they moved the Missouri to Hawaii. I thought
more an insult until I realized the story of the Turner Joy would continue
to be told and perhaps, just perhaps, serve as a warning to future
generations of cannon fodder. Another reason I dislike the draft and
believe only in volunteers and professionals.

M.


"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Michael" wrote in message
...
LBJ took the information sent to him from the Turner Joy and used it as
a
pretext to start a war.

As did we all. Again, Ike's plan was to make N/S Vietnam like E/W Germany
so that capitalism would win the scheduled reunification election but the
Diems had diverted the aid intended to achieve that and we had Buddists
torching themselves in protest. The CIA, et al warned JFK he'd have to
whack Diem quickly for Ike's plan to succeed but. as always, he wavered
and
did nothing til it was too late and polls were showing commies by a
landslide. Then he went to Dallas leaving McNamara, Bunker and other Whiz
Kids to contrive the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

JFK had ordered a complete troop and adviser withdrawal. LBJ reversed
that.
JFK did not rule out the use of the National Guard, that was LBJ once
again.
That war was Lyndon's War pure and simple. All those names on that
monument
in Washington? Because of one meglomaniac.

I have a saying: "Never attribute to malace that which can be explained by
stupidity." I believe that applies to LBJ in this case. Yes, he did
start
the war but, as you say, based on reports from Turner Joy, an incident
contrived by McNamara and Bunker to get presidential, congressional and
public support for an adventure doomed to fail from its inception. Then
he
escalated it - again based on reports (disinformation) given him via
McNamara and Bunker from their hand-picked yes-men. JFK's whiz kids duped
us into that war. Do we blame JFK for hiring them or LBJ for keeping them?


LBJ is not someone the Democrat party should point to with pride.

You're right! He was almost as bad as Reagan.

and the content alluded to non-acceptance of 4F's?

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"
wrote this crap:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective Service
System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and older males
are
still required to register for universal conscription. When cannon
fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer push button
away.

I just got a letter from the Selective Service System today.




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

If that includes mental defectives, yes for sure.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
and the content alluded to non-acceptance of 4F's?

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:09:54 -0800, "Michael"
wrote this crap:

What do you mean 'if we still had the draft?' The Selective Service
System
is alive, well and ready to be used when needed. All 18 and older
males
are
still required to register for universal conscription. When cannon
fodder
is needed . . . . .re-activating the system is but a computer push
button
away.

I just got a letter from the Selective Service System today.




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe