|
Can we achieve the goal of true equality without programs
that are conscious of race, ethnicity and gender? If not, at what cost?
AUDIENCE COMMENTS:
THESE TWO KIDS ARE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT. ISEE VERY
FEW ASPECTS I WOULD EVEN DARE TO COMPARE.
rodrigo
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 22:16 |
I thinks it's disgusting that our prisons are beter
funded than our public schools. Where are our priorities?
mich2501@aol.com
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 22:30 |
affirmative action is a double-edged sword. I think
that while it eventually became something wrong, it was a step in the right
direction that things were happening. What's important now is the spirit-- the
will and effort to try to make things right again. Affirmative Action's
elimination came at a bad time, but hopefully a better solution will come
soon.
john liu
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 22:49 |
I'm 23 year old Latino who only went to college
for six months, and for whatever reason stopped. But this isn't why I feel
the need to join the discussion, it really is because I feel that yes we need
affirmative action, but not in the manner that we are and have been getting it.
Sure I know that we as minorities are in a sort of disadvantage when it comes
to hiring and college admissions. But I think that we are trying to give a man
a fish to feed his family instead of giving this man a fishing rod and teaching
him how to fish for himself. You see, we have been trying to give minorities an
advantage over white males even when that minority does not deserve it, we just
assume that because he or she are a minority, well they deserve a break, but
you know what happens when you give a break to somebody that doesn't
deserve it. You create an individual with no self-worth, what do I mean you
might ask, I mean that this person does not appreciate this break that was
given to him or her and unknowably discards it as something that they had
coming anyhow so why care. I see this happening at welfare centers everyday. Do
you really think that I, as a poor Latino receiving welfare care about getting
a job? NO I don't care this is being handed down to me (somebody is giving
me a fish, and not actually teaching me how to fish), this is just fact about
human behavior that we are not trying to accept. I know what you are thinking,
this is about the oppression and discrimination that we as minorities have
suffered through out the years, and I guess that since I'm only 23 years
old I've never felt it. But you see whether I have or not, there needs to
an end, and I think that you would agree with me that the way affirmative
action has been carried out has not been the best way. Well, what can be done?
You answer that question by looking at the bottom line, we want minorities to
have an equal playing field in the U.S. right, well let's teach our
minorities real math, real science, real education, not African American
studies, not Mexican culture, not Asian culture. Yes, you are thinking, but we
don't want our kids to loose their ethnic identity, well ask yourself
this: Do you want your kid to be a successful businessman, or a Successful
African-American/Mexican-American studies graduate working for minimum wage
worker. You see last time I checked, you don't become a C.E.O. by knowing
how the Mayans were abolished by the Spaniards, but by knowing economics and
marketing, yes knowing other cultures will help you in marketing but not the
other way around, majoring in cultures and knowing a little of marketing will
probably not take you very far. We have to face reality and realize that the
world does not revolve around our culture, but around money, sad but true I
can't buy bread to feed my kid with a liberal studies degree, but I will
probably be able to get a decent job with science degree. I know leave you with
something that we all as adults know: Just as beauty is in the eyes of the
beholder, equality is in the eyes of the oppressed. The world is not equal,
never has been, and it will never be. However, we can sure try to make it, but
not by feeding the hungry but by teaching the hungry how to feed themselves.
Ivan Alonso
Ivan
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 22:52 |
Great show Great show
m. andrews
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 22:58 |
What was the voter turnout during the November 1996
election ? Was it really 55% of California voters who approved proposition 209
(as if all Californian's that are 18 or older voted) or was it the politically
aware white majority?
JLW
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 23:01 |
I'm still unclear as to why a "colorblind"
admissions process is expected to work in a society that is NOT colorblind. I
personally don't believe that the goal should be "colorblindness"
since that standard does not exist in much less emotionally-charged arenas. The
majority of Americans CAN see color and do take note of it. The difference is
that we don't attach a VALUE to color in other arenas. For example, I see 2
cars that are identical except for the color. While I may have a personal
preference for a particular color, I won't make a value judgement or assume
characteristics, such as "Car A is a better (more reliable, better made,
etc) because it's blue" or "Green cars break down a lot. They don't
get good gas mileage." Unfortunately, when the color is skin-color, in
this country, various perceptions, stereotypes, assumptions, etc. are connected
to certain colors. Until THIS is addressed and adequately dealt with, this
state, this country will NOT be able to have "an equal playing
field."
Pamela Jones
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 23:05 |
We can only achieve true equality when we are
willing to equalize the economic playing field by putting more money into
public education. Since this does not appear likely to happen, then we need to
further consider the student's abilities and accomplishments in the context of
their environment. I was pleased to learn from the video that UC Berkeley
really does consider the student based on a "holistic" look at their
life.
Jeannine Stein
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 23:12 |
Connerly says it's immoral that students were
accepted on the basis of racial preference who were not academically
"competitive", but how do we define "competitive"? Isn't it
a competitive advantage to be able to relate to other people of diverse racial
and cultural backgrounds? Isn't speaking a second language an advantage for any
career? The necessary ingredients of success are much more varied than GPAs and
SATs...
Robert
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 23:13 |
When the black woman from Smith College sitting next
to Ward Connerly tried to put forth the hypothetical situation of the
"identical students but for their race," I practically laughed to
death. Sure, it's hard to make a decision if they are identical. Then, she
trips over her original argument by saying one student did not have as many
privileges as the other. Well, they aren't so identical anymore, are they? It
doesn't matter if on student is black, and the other is white. It doesn't
matter if they are both white. The student who overcomes a lack of privileges
should be considered before the other. The issue should have nothing to do with
race, though I do realize that many financially underprivileged students are
from racial minorities. So what happens to the student from a racial majority
that is underprivileged as well? I firmly believe in a race-blind admissions
process to universities like UC Berkeley and other such institutions Another
comment she made that disgusted me, and also the person she responded to, was
her lashing out at the statement made about sickle-cell anemia. Yes, the
blonde-haired woman knew it was a disease that primarily affects black people.
It was an analogy to absurdity of the issue of linking financial or community
difficulties with race. Eugene Chan
Eugene Chan
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 23:25 |
After watching the Making the Grade presentation, I
am filled with mixed emotions. While I applaud the program's discussion of the
lack of resources that our public schools enjoy, I feel that the discussion of
Berkeley's admissions policy was not quite as fair handed. The funding issue is
the very heart of the problem facing California's schools and students. We
cannot lay off outstanding teachers like Ms. Safir and expect to keep the
quality of education at an acceptable level. I wish that the program had dealt
with the problem of the Teacher's Unions control of our educational system
however, for while energentic new teachers such as Ms. Safir are turned away
from teaching, we are retaining some burnt out teachers that should really move
on, but due to their seniority and the Union's chokehold, have no
accountability. In addition, valuable resources are being used to support
political organizations rather than being used to benefit the students or
teachers directly. The best raise that teachers could get tomorrow would be for
the Union to give back their dues which are mostly being used to support the
Union organization rather than to help the teachers. As for the admissions
policy at Berkeley, the fact that students like Ailed may not be accepted is no
great tragedy. All of the schools which she was accepted at are perfectly
acceptable institutions of higher education and she will receive as good an
education as she wishes. Berkeley is not the only University in the state and
the research focus of the school is not well-designed to serve the needs of any
undergraduate student, much less one who is in need of remedial help. It better
serves Ailed's needs to be at a school where she is on an even-playing field
with her peers rather then being asked to move up to a level that she is not
prepared for. The very policies that are designed to give accessability to all
students to places like Berkeley and UCLA will in the end destroy the schools
and their reputations and ranks. The California Master Plan for Education does
not call for the State's four-year universities to practice an open-enrollment
system, that is what the Cal-State and Community College system was designed
for. When students like Ailed do not have the necessary skills to compete
directly with students like Damon in a Freshman level English class, it is not
fair to either student to force them into the same place. In California,
students like Ailed may go to places like San Jose State (where she was already
accepted)in order to gain the necessary skills and to be competitive at the
level demanded by Berkely and UCLA, and then transfer into the University
system and graduate with a full degree from the University. This is how the
system was designed to work, it is fair, and it serves the students' needs
directly.
Patrick Strader
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 23:29 |
equality, i beleive, will come in time but it will
be at the expense of individuality and culture. These things expose differences
that are the basis of discrimination. Not that that is ok, it just seems that
the more the same we are the less conflict there is. interracial reproduction
will eventually homogenize our society if we don't kill each other first.
mark
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 23:30 |
The program that aired before "Making the
Grade" made it clear that we need to move toward a more complex debate
over the issues of equality in our society. Even if voters in California had
rejected the effort to overturn affirmative action, we would still have a
system of gross inequality. If anything good can come from the elimination of
affirmative action, which I support, perhaps it is this discussion. How can we
make our society more equal? The programs instituted 35 years ago helped us
make some real progress toward equality, but they were not, and are not,
adequate to really begin achieving a true equality of opportunity in our
country. Hopefully, these discussions will result in new programs that can do
even more to create greater equality. Hopefully.
Jim Smith
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 23:38 |
I just read Ivan's posting. While I can definitely
agree with many of the concepts, I do have a couple of comments. One, I don't
believe that thinking of people as "deserving" or not is helpful. I
also don't think the comments on "ethnic" studies majors present the
full story. I believe that SOMETHING (I won't label it as "affirmative
action," "special consideration" or any of the current
phraseology) should be done to correct the obvious disparity between white
americans and black, Hispanic, Filipino, Vietnamese, etc. americans. Given that
we live in a capitalist country, I am not expecting that poverty will EVER be
eradicated since our economic system REQUIRES different economic groups.
However, it would be nice to start SOMETHING that would change the ethnic
diversity within the groups, e.g. the upper eschelons would not be majority
white nor would those at or below the poverty line be predominately non-white.
Since I work with children, I believe that SOMETHING needs to address
maximizing a child's ability and potential to be "competitive." For
me, this includes prenatal, newborn, infant, toddler and school-age
interventions. There is no reason to believe that SOMETHING that doesn't affect
kids until the 12th grade is THE solution. By 12th grade, it's too late to
"level the playing field." The "playing field" leveling
needs to start BEFORE the kids reach the field. It's unfair to children to put
the "American Dream" in front of them as a carrot if we, as a
society, aren't willing to educate, equip and position them, as much as
possible, to work to attain it. Not some kids, not "our" kids, not
well-resourced kids--but ALL kids. For me, the question is not
"affirmative action or not," but "if not, affirmative action,
then what?"
Pamela
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 23:39 |
It's me again. Anyway, this discussion hits very
close to home for me. I'm a first year UC Berkeley student living in the dorms.
My roommate is Latino. I'm Chinese, and it was addressed tonight that the Asian
representation at the "Big State University" had risen about 3%.
Also, the Chinese woman who said the diversity had decreased because while the
Asian population had increased a minimal 3%, Black and Latino representation
had dropped approximately a mighty 50% each. Obivously, she doesn't know math.
The pre-existing Asian minority was already the largest minority, larger than
the white minority. A modest percentage gain to a larger population can be
larger in volume than a drastic percentage reduction to an already small
population. Getting back to my original POV, somehow my roommate and I ended up
arguing into the early hours of one morning about affirmative action. Along
with about 4 other of my suitemates, I defended the POV that affirmative action
in the form that it had been introduced years ago was not and would not work.
Of course, the fundamental mechanics and goals of affirmative action are
amiable, but the way in which it has been deployed is horrible. Trying to keep
it alive is like trying to beat a dead horse. My roommate is living proof that
UC Berkeley's admission process works. He got into Berkeley without affirmative
action. He was the valedictorian of his high school. He doesn't give himself
the credit and thinks it was only divine intervention and he was single out by
the school to succeed. I don't believe that. I believe his school provided all
the necessary tools for him to get into UC Berkeley, and the other students did
not strive for the same goals he did or were affected by issues outside of the
school. His family supported him with labor, he said. That's nice to know, but
when do we start admitting mediocre students who had no family support over top
students who had a stable background? You can't take a risk in high society,
unfortunately. The one that performs is the one that makes it. Also, who's to
say that under the same problems, the top grade student won't perform as well
as the mediocre one? You can't, so you can't admit the mediocre stundent over
the top one. However, if their academic performance was equal, and one student
did have to overcome difficulties such as family issues and financial issues,
by all means, reward that student. To get to the point, I think the old system
did not work, and we have to start affirmative action programs in elementary
education. We have to clean up the public schools and get communities involved
in self-help. By trying to improve on a shoddy system, you don't get the best
results. It's often a better solution to ABOLISH the current system and start
on a fresh piece of slate. Eugene Chan ceugene@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Eugene Chan
Tuesday, Mar. 23 1999 at 23:55 |
Blarg! KQED needs a Java chat room or something...
They also need to re-enable HTML tags so that my comments don't seem like one
brobdingnagian paragraph with no stucture... Eugene Chan
ceugene@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Eugene Chan
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 00:00 |
I strongly disagree with race playing a role in the
admissions process. If someone is smart enough to get into the school of their
choice, they will be accepted. Race should have nothing to do with it.
Jarad Bernstein
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 00:01 |
Kudos to Ward Connerly for consistantly being the
voice of reason in a mass of emotion and confusion. This man and his
common-sense approach to education are a model that we should all strive to
follow.
Bob
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 00:07 |
Heh, "Bob." I applauded the reaction of
the blonde woman to the "Ms. Smith College" telling her that the
comments she made were offensive. Turn away. Do not associate with foolish
people whose only strife is to cloud the matter and create a larger rift.
Eugene Chan ceugene@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Eugene Chan
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 00:11 |
Lets get real. The POWER ELITE do not want a level
playing field. Nor will they give up their privileged upper class life style
for the sake of us all. As long as the POWER ELITE are able to convince the
mass majority that their upwardly mobile issues are because of racial problems
and not CLASS inequities, the next 35 years will be like the last 35 years. As
you might be aware, the University of California Regents voted to eliminate
Affirmative Action BEFORE the November 1996 vote on Proposition 209. But, what
you may not be aware of, is that, the Regents voted to continue the practice of
allowing preference in admissions to applicants of major donors (MONEY TALKS
AND B... WALKS). The POWER ELITE will continue to run the country until the
masses stand up and say "enough is enough". THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT
BE TELEVISED.
jlw
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 00:28 |
Sure, I'd have no quarrels with eliminating 'legacy'
admits and such, if that's what you mean, jlw. Money talks, but that's not
going to affect the admission process more than a smidgen. Eugene Chan
ceugene@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Eugene Chan
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 00:42 |
No Mr. Chan, 'legacy' is not what I am speaking of.
The Regents voted to allow the financial donation of ANY applicants "major
donor" to be considered as preference in admissions. And in regards to
your "smidgen" comment, that is all the POWER ELITE would allow
through AA. As you go forward in your studies at UCB, please consider taking a
few History courses. It might be intriguing to know why the Japanese were put
into internment camps in the U.S. at the start of WWII. Or, why were the
Chinese were so grossly under paid (if paid at all) while building the
railroads during 1800's. Moreover, why did the Filipino government allow mail
order brides to come to the U.S. until the current administration came to
power. I won't bore you with issues regarding American Indians, Latinos,
Chicanos or African Americans. By the way, congratulations on Cal's men's
basketball team NIT victory. Thank god for those admissions preferences to
those black players. How much money is Cal going to receive from their efforts?
jlw
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 01:23 |
It's too bad that KQED feels it necessary to censor
the comments they don't agree with ...
Been censored here ...
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 11:14 |
Affirmative Action in the form we know it as is
exactly what you describe. It's all based on skin color because the populations
of many underprivileged communities consist of Latinos and Blacks and others.
It's a sad truth, yes, but should affirmative action be treated as reparations
for past injust treatment that are manifested in public universities and
employment? Sorry, I don't think so. Reform early education and give them the
opportunity to perform to the level of UC Berkeley admits. Look above at Ivan's
fish and fishing rod analogy. It says a lot. You can't just give them the fish
and expect he can do more. You have to give him the fishing rod and teach him
how to fish. Affirmative Action should be positioned to aid people at a much
younger age. Furthermore, Cal admitted the basketball players because they were
GREAT players. You're confusing the issues. You see great black players. I see
great players who happen to be black. Also, unfortunately, most varsity sports
players in college aren't bound to the same standards of regular admits, so
you're tripping on your own comments again. The POWER ELITE you speak of, are
you sure it's not an excuse? When a student is able to meet the UC Berkeley
standards and exceed most of the other eligible prospects, he'll get in. He
won't get in any more easily if he checks a box that says he's
filipino/black/chinese/latino. Eugene Chan
Eugene Chan
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 14:04 |
Waz up wit all dis school stuff. The real issue is
how to help minorities to get what they really needs. I'm talkin about cool
necessities like NIKE and Old Navy. We minorities just love to make rich men
richer.
Evbon Knicks
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 14:26 |
The issue here is affirmative action; however, I
can't help but notice that a majority of minorities could care less about
extending their education. Many of them are too busy trying to watch their
backs and trying to survive the only way they know how. I believe many minority
students, which together can make such an amplified voice, fail to get involve
with a solution because they're engaged with their saftey. Many of these
students are bombarded with problems such as gangs and heavy drugs. A lot of
them fall into the trap where if they can't beat them they join them.
Minorities are surrounded by ignorance and if they don't see any better they
will not know any better. You can polish public schools all you want but if
safety for these students doesn't improve, all that investment will be a waste.
Miguel Barbosa
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 15:43 |
Not only will KQED censor what you say if they don't
agree with it, they'll remove your complaint about it as well! Great discussion
forum, huh?
Censored again ...
Wednesday, Mar. 24 1999 at 17:36 |
Affirmative Action is about race, but it should also
concentrate on Economics. Affirmative Action gives special priviledges to
certain minorities. And places quotas upon others. I'll give you an example of
unfairness with this system. Under affirmative action, A upper middle class
African American would have an easier chance to enter the UC system, as
compared to a poor Vietnamese-American. The Middle class student would have the
advantage of a Computer, of going to a better funded school. Because of local
property taxes. And the Middle class African American high school student's
parents have the money to enroll him/her into a SAT prep course. Naturally this
individual would score higher than the Vietnamese-American who must work
afternoons in order to contribute to the family, Who also has to do added
chores for family because there parents hold several jobs. The Vietnamese
Student wants to go to a UC school and might even excell in that enviorment but
he/she would be held back their Socioeconomic status. So while racial diversity
is important in promoting Racial equality. There is also the problem of Class
equality. Affirmative Action was created for the disadvantaged minority.
Affirmative Action based on Race may keep out those in the lower class. And it
is they who need the most help and over come the most adversity.
Michael
Thursday, Mar. 25 1999 at 19:40 |
Asian Americans are often used left out of a
Affirmative Action stastic. Minority in California simply means Not White and
Not Asian. Rev. Jesse Jackson spoke out at SJSU last month complaining about
the lack of "minorities" in the Silicon Valley. Aren't Asians a
minority in this country anymore? Asians represent less than 3% of the total
population. That's not Chinese Americans, or Japanese Americans. That's all
Asians!!! Asians do not have a Asian congressional Caucas. Like the Black
Congressional Caucas. Therefore whenever many civil rights groups(Such as the
NAACP) talk about Minorities the Asians are usually left out. Affirmative
Action is skewed against Asians simply because many Asian household stress
education more than those of other minorities. It is even more difficult for a
Chinese high school student to enter Berkeley than a Caucasian. People who
fight for Affirmative Action must take into account the Asian population who is
often oppressed by other minorities. Asian American not Caucasian have the most
to lose in Affirmative Action system.
Mike
Thursday, Mar. 25 1999 at 19:52 |
I have no sympathy for the inner-city youths who
complain that the university admissions process is unfair because their high
schools do not offer advanced placement courses. Why can't they go to the
city's community colleges and take college-level courses there? If they can't
get into Cal right after high school graduation, why can't they attend a
community college first, prove themselves academically ready, and then transfer
to Cal? Many of my Cal classmates went to community colleges first and they had
no trouble keeping up with the courses.
Adam
Thursday, Mar. 25 1999 at 20:59 |
somebody else voiced my reasoning rather concisely.
When affirmative action makes it easier for a middle-class Black student to get
into a college than a lower-class Asian, there's a problem. I don't know what
to think, because race-blindness on a UC app would have to further an omitting
one checkbox...When a student's last name is Chan or Garcia or Yoshimura,
assumptions will be made, and that's also saddening.
Eugene Chan
Friday, Mar. 26 1999 at 01:49 |
Make no mistake about it, affirmative action IS
discrimnation. The issue is then whether you believe it is justifiable
discrimination. In my book no discrimination is justified because the
Constitution (thankfully) does not protect races or classes it protects
individuals ("no INDIVIDUAL shall be denied equal protection . . ."
"no INDIVIDUAL shall be discriminated against on the basis of race . .
."). White people are individuals too. Mike makes a good point;
"asian households stress education more than those of other
minorities." For this simple reason affirmative action cannnot level the
playing field, only the individual households can level the playing field.
Individual asians have succeeded in this country by the sweat of their own
brow, and other individuals of other races, including white people, are
responsible for their own failures.
Doc
Friday, Mar. 26 1999 at 13:39 |
In view of the discussions over affirmative action,
I thought this article might be of interest as, in my opinion, it successfully
addresses many of the attacks upon affirmative action, and shows its
importance: The Civil Rights: White Men's Hope Julian Bond President Bush
and Congress have overlooked an important reason why they should immediately
enact the Civil Rights Act of 1990: to help white men overcome their feelings
of inferiority. Let me explain. Many whites and some blacks now argue that
preferential racial treatment creates deep-seated feelings of deficiency and
mediocrity in its beneficiaries. They warn that race-conscious practices, in
hiring or education, cast suspicion on the competence of those given an
advantage. But if that is so, we need the new Civil Rights Act more than ever,
to overcome the sense of inferiority that has afflicted American white men for
years. Think of it. For decades, white men have known they've received
favored, front-of-the-line positions in jobs, education, and the benefits of a
race-conscious society. Without having to compete with minorities or women, any
white man, no matter what his qualifications, had a head start. All he needed
was membership in the favored race and sex. The knowledge that maids, porters,
garbage collectors, unemployed teenagers, and cotton pickers were suspicious of
their credentials took a heavy psychic toll on white American males. Some even
chose to remain unemployed rather than take a job or a place in a prestigious
university solely because of their race. “How would you feel,” one
said, “if everyone knew you had your job just because you were
white?” Social scientists say white male inferiority complexes began to
diminish with the passage of early civil rights laws in the 1960s, and when
blacks and women began to enter the work force in large numbers. But even
relaxing the discrimination—which had reserved jobs as diverse as Supreme
Court Justice, professional baseball manager, big city mayor, U.S. Naval
officer, professional quarterback, talk show host, serial killer, and newspaper
columnist and publisher for white men exclusively—did little to ease the
cruel intimations of mediocrity that ran rampant among white males. These
feelings of inadequacy began to return during the Reagan years. Some white men
adopted a victim complex, blaming the federal government and the courts for
mistreating them. Last year's Supreme Court decisions were the final
straw. The Court made it harder for minorities to sue against white privilege
and harder for women to litigate employment rules that discriminated against
them. It guaranteed a return to favored status for white males. “It's
all I can take,” a white investment banker said. “I'm sure my
gardener was laughing at me as I drove into town this morning. Then the waiter
at the club had a funny smirk on his face. I've had it, I tell you!”
the anguished Anglo-Saxon mourned. If President Bush has any compassion, he
will move swiftly to remove the awful stigma of race. These victims have
suffered long enough. Free white men!
M.H.
Friday, Mar. 26 1999 at 15:03 |
I won't be long b/c I know you're not reading this
to actually see if I convince you that my position is the "right"
one. Has everyone forgotten about Ailed and Damon? This is the problem with AA
discussions. People take positions for political, social, or legal reasons and
pretend to engage in dialogue. AA is attacked b/c it is much easier to attack a
policy rather than a system which allows both Ailed and Damon to attend public
school with drastically unequal resources. People are more comfortable with
condemning a program than with openly condemning Ailed to second-class status.
AA has real-life consequences and as we debate, children are being denied
opportunities. The truth is that AA does discriminate, but that isn't the end
of the debate. There are legal justifications for discrimination that are
upheld. The question is why isn't AA treated as a solution to past and CURRENT
discrimination. Certainly one cannot argue that Ailed and Damon are equal. The
fundamental problem is this: if you don't think that discrimination should or
can be remedied, then we can't even pretend to engage in dialogue. If white
Americans continue to deny that they have been beneficiaries of a system which
allows Damon and Ailed to attend such unequal schools we cannot pretend to
engage in dialogue. I'm not arguing that all white Americans created this
system, but I am suggesting that they have benefitted from it and that's all I
ask. I won't get it, but that's okay too. I was an exchange student in
Johannesburg, South Africa last semester and heard the same incredible denials
against white privilege only 4 years after the end of Apartheid. Until there is
acknowledgement of such fundamentals, there can be no progress.
Vicky Beasley
Saturday, Mar. 27 1999 at 07:19 |
Having attended segregated, all black schools, K-12,
and having entered into the workforce before AA, I understand the importance of
affirmative action. But what we need is an affirmative action system which
promotes self help with strong role models rather than one which diminishes
personal responsibility and pride in personal achievement. Blacks did not
design the current AA programs, Charles Schultz and his think tank did. We as
Black Americans sat back and again allowed well intentioned whites to create a
system for us to fit into. When my people step up to full accountability we
will design a public school system which is geared to work for us rather than
one which normalizes practices and policies to minimize standards.
Ted Marsh
Saturday, Mar. 27 1999 at 19:27 |
What most people fail to see is that we are hurting
our society by favoring one group or another. It is clear that equality is s
difficult ground to achieve. The most important thing that students need to
remember is even if you can not go to Berkeley or Stanford that there are
educational opportunities out there in higher education for all. As a student
who has faced many hardships because of race, gender, disability I understand
how the students at Balbo feel. Although I did not have the money to go to
Stanford or Santa Clara University I still find that I have achieved my goals
at a CSU. I understand that there is a two tier system between the UC's and
CSU's, but ultimately the students who struggle will make for very
understanding and strong leaders for the children of the future. Respectfully,
Sema Nicole Seyedi
sema_seyedi@monterey.edu
Saturday, Mar. 27 1999 at 19:43 |
As an Asian American, all my friends, my parents,
and relatives tells me how unfair and wrong affirmative action is. However, I
believe affirmative action is necessary in the UC system. When I try to explain
to my friends that affirmative action is this: taking 2 identical
scores/profiles and choosing a less represented minority over the more common
on. However, all the people say that these days, that is now how affirmative
action works anymore. HOW much truth do they have to this statement. They also
said that they would support affirmative action if it is "done
right." can someone email me and explain to me the exact process and why
many people think affirmative action is not "done right" nowadays.
sammy (dsharky@cwia.com)
Sammy Z
Saturday, Mar. 27 1999 at 19:58 |
What is really sad about Connerly's comment is that
he probably got where he is today because of Affirmative Action!
Oh Tepmongkol
Saturday, Mar. 27 1999 at 20:06 |
I just read Sammy Z's comments above and I have one
question for any Asian reader who supports Affirmative Action: As you know,
Asians are over-represented in elite U.C. schools such as Cal and UCLA. Would
you, as an Asian, be willing to sacrifice your place or your children's place
in U.C. so that a less-qualified minority student may be admitted?
Adam
Sunday, Mar. 28 1999 at 04:21 |
I completely agree with sema_seyedi above. Some of
my Cal classmates had trouble finding jobs after graduation, while many of the
successful engineers making big salaries in Silicon Valley are from Cal State
(San Jose). Cal Berkeley is a great school, but the Cal State universities
provide an excellent education as well, and if minority high school students
look down upon Cal State and complain that they cannot get into Berkeley, then
I believe those students are too ignorant to deserve admissions
anywhere.
Adam
Sunday, Mar. 28 1999 at 04:40 |
To answer Adam's question, YES. To say that a
degree from Cal or Cal State makes no difference in one's ability in finding a
job is a little naive!
Oh Tepmongkol
Sunday, Mar. 28 1999 at 08:02 |
HELLO THERE.IM ONE OF THE FINEST STUDENTS IN BALBOAS
LAW ACADEMY. EVERYONE HERE HAS EXTREME ARGUEMENTS ABOUT AFIRMATIVE ACTION, WARD
CONNERLY, AND AILED AND DAMON.I DONT WANT TO SAY ANYTHING THAT WILL HAVE YOU
PEOPLE ATTACK MY COMMENTS. SO ILL BE AS BLUNT AS POSSIBLE. NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY
IDEA OF THE THINGS WE LEARNED DURING THE PAST MONTHS THAT WE HAVE BEEN TOGETHER
WITH THE MA STUDENTS. THE DOUCUMENTRY ONLY SHOWS THE JEST OF WHAT WE DID. WE
DONT NEED YOUR SYMPATHY(ADAM)NOR DO WE LOOK FOR IT FROM ANYONE. THIS PROGRAM
WAS INTENDED TO OPEN THE MINDS OF THE "NON-EDUCATED" PEOPLE, OUR
PEERS, OUR PARENTS, AND MAYBE EVEN THOSE GANGBANGERS OUT THERE.NOT JUST TO OPEN
MINDS BUT TO INFORM PEOPLE WE ARE LEARNING THE THINGS YOU LEARNED IN COLLEGE
THAT GAVE YOU A PERCEPTIVE OF SOICETY. AS YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN, SOME OF US WENT
TO THE BOARD OF ED TO BRING FORTH OUR "TROUBLES" OR WHATEVER YOU'D
LIKE TO CALL THEM, IN WHICH CASE, WE HAVE BEGUN TO ACT. YOU ALL CAN SIT AND
TYPE YOUR COMMENTS BUT WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP US IN OUR STRUGGLE FOR THIS
INEQUALITY?IF YOU HADNT NOTICE WE ADDRESSED THE ISSUES, WE STATED THE PROBLEM,
WE KNOW THE HARM IT COULD CAUSE, AND WE'VE BEGUN TO ACT. WE'VE STARTED OUR
ORGANNIZATION AND ARE LOOKING TO MAKE SOME CHANGE FOR THE FUTURE STUDENTS IN
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. WE ALREADY HAVE MEETINGS SET UP WITH A BOARD MEMEBER,
PRESIDENT OF UESF KENT MITCHELL, AND WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IT SUPERINTENDENT BILL
ROJAS.WE HAVE A VIDEO CREW PREPARED TO SEND OUT VIDEOS TO INFORM OUR PEERS AT
EACH SCHOOL. WE ARE AT THE MOMENT BRINGING A COLLABORATION WITH OUR NEIGHBORING
SCHOOLS. SO AS YOU SIT WAITING TO ATTACK THE THINGS I LEARNED, THE THINGS I
REPRESENT, MY GRAMMAR IN THIS LONG NEVER ENDING PARAGRAPH(YEH THEY SHOULD GET A
JAVA CHAT ROOM ), WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP INSTEAD OF BITCH AND COMPLAIN AND
ARGUE LIKE A BUNCH OF ADULTS? I KNOW THIS COMMENT DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU
"I WENT TO COLLEGE PEOPLE" BUT I HOPE I GOT YOUR BLOODY ATTENTION.
SEND YOUR COMPLAINTS TO SWCARE@HOTMAIL.COM IF YOUR READY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT
OUR EDUCATION.(OR GIVE SYMPAHTY)
N.G SWCARE
Monday, Mar. 29 1999 at 12:07 |
HOME | AFFIRMATIVE ACTION |
AILED & DAMON | ADMISSIONS AT
UCB | A PERFECT SCHOOL
Copyright © 1994-2002 KQED, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
