4/7     Isn't it funny that someone is perfectly ok with being denied entrance
        to a college in favor of people with lower scores, so long as that
        person with lower scores was white?
        http://csua.org/u/c9e (washington post column, free registration, blah
        blah)
        \_ As much as I hate to take the same of the issue as the knee-jerk
           pseduoconservative facists, this author missed the point.  No one
           got points for being white.  People *did* get points for being
           part of a recognized minority group.  The other bonuses had to
           do with things like participation in athletics, student government
           and social service organizations.  None of these, which the single
           exception of the child-of-alumni credit, has a disctinct racial
           correlation slanted towards white people.  Assuming that the
           comfort or discomfort of this applicant had to do with the race
           of the benefactors is both unfair and unwarranted by anything I
           have heard from her.         -liberal lawyer
                \_ Just curious, are you saying motd conservatives are really
                   faux conservatives, faux fascists, or both?  And if so, how
                   can we be real conservatives, fascists, or both in your
                   liberal lawyer view?  --wannabe pseudoconservative fascist
                \_ I imagine you will get far with this insightful pithy legal
                   rhetoric.  Please post your name / affiliation so others
                   might avoid your services.
        \_ White?  I thought it's usually black or Hispanic.
           \_ No, you fail to understand.  See, she didn't sue when she found
              out that she had lost out to a person with lower scores.  That
              didn't bother her when she thought it was due to some other sort
              of desire the college had (for people with diverse socioeconomic
           he did not mention any of the other criterion for getting "points".
              backgrounds, athletes, etc.).  No, she only sued when she found
              out that she had lost out to people who were black.
           \_ Perhaps she was comfortable with a policy that gave extra
              points to applicants' accomplishments and talents
              as opposed to their ancestry.
              \_ Yeah, as long as they were white!
        \_ Current case law:  You can't use quotas, but you can use race as
           a "factor".  20 points for being black out of 150 points is a
           "factor" but not a quota, so it's legal.
             \_ I love people who can't distinguish between a moral discussion
                and a legal one.  (this includes almost all lawyers). Do you
                plan on becoming a lawyer.  'Cause you already have the mind-set.
                \_ obcookie
        \_ No, it's not funny, or even interesting, at all.  I would wager that
           the majority of people who are against race-based affirmative action
           are in favor of socio-economic affirmative action (at the very least
           as a "reasonable compromise").  Socio-economic AA is not racist,
           whereas race-based AA, ipso facto, is.  What *Is* "funny" is that
           he did not mention any of the other criteria for getting "points".
           I can only assume that this is because if he had people would have
           noticed a difference between judging based on those items and judging
           based on race.  As the individual bringing suit may have as well.
           \_ I disagree with your "ipso-facto."  This is opinion, rather than
              \_ I'm not the original author, but I'll defend the use of
                 the term "ipso-facto".  The immediate clause indicates that
                 race based AA is a racist practice.  This is true, whether
                 you find is morally repugnant or morally just.  Perhaps it
                 the difference is that the latter term has a negative
                 connotation whereas the former may not for some.  Be
                 wary when reframing a statement changes your opinion of it.
                 This typically means you are holding conflicting beliefs
                 and could use a little introspection.
                 \_ Sigh... you're bringing harsh facts into this.  Please,
                    stop now before someone learns something and becomes a
                    better person!  Think of the children!
              fact.  Why is it ok for a school to place importance on elements
              of diversity such a culture, heritage, and socio-economic
              background, but not on ethnicity?  Ethnicity in America is the
              very essence of culture.  To say that race "doesn't
              matter" and "has no bearing" when it clearly DOES have a bearing
              is willfully ignorant of life in America.  But that's just my
              opinion.  By the way, the motd conservatives are way too easy
              to troll.
              \_ The problem is you can't just become black to earn these
                 bonus points.  There are lots of poor people irrespective
                 of what color they are, so it's okay to earn points because
                 you're poor.
                 \_ Do it for the children!  Please stop now!
              \_ Got your point smashed to the sharpness of a dull crayon so
                 you decide to claim you were just trolling all along? Uh huh.
                 Like anyone believes that.  Back to rhetoric 1a for you!