Whites have had the advantage in college admissions and jobs for many years. This really hasn't been a factor for a number of years, but the "sins of our fathers" (as mentioned in an earlier post) must be carried on for a few generations until we have attained equality.

I feel there are a number of racial based organizations that are racist. Unfortunately, if you attempt to have a white-based organization in a school or public institution, you will have that organization labeled as racist, when the same would not normally be said about other groups.

I disagree with the NAACP being considered racist. They are racially based and are careful to look out for their own. Eventually there will not be a need for the NAACP and they will go the way of the Suffragettes (sp?).

...mysterious appeals to 'the Book' and how the Jews killed Jesus, unaware (or aware?) of what this accusation has meant historically.

...applauding 'Watch Lists'

...the NAACP is racist, a group dedicated to non-violence and ending racism

...all of these sympathetic allusions to a 'white interest group or groups'

What the hell is going on here? Is Cbid on some sort of extreme right-wing list of bbs' to use? Is there some sort of hallucinogen in the Cbid cigars?

I agree with SteveR, by the way: your writing needs a lot of work. There is your answer, most likely, concerning why you weren't admitted where you wanted. GPA and test scores are never the sole reason for admission. It could be that your black friend is a better writer, did a better job at self-presentation, and so on. You shouldn't speculate that it was only race. Truth be told, you really don't know why they decided why and how they did. Maybe one of your recommendation letters was weak or maybe didn't make it to the application file or who knows what. Everyone here is an 'expert,' though no one knows **** about how the decision (or any decision) was made.

If the NAACP isn't racist, then when are they going to "champion" on of my efforts? When will they pull their head out of their collective asses and see that the Democratic party has been using them and putting them down? Playing race cards and exclusivity isn't promoting racial harmony. The Civil Rights bill was passed decades ago, why the constant need to keep the club alive? I don't know or care what part of the world YOU live in, but there are no Whites Only water fountains and people can sit wherever they want on a bus,unlike the recent Halle Barry ad where they have to be seated in the kitchen...that is the kind of BS that they perpetuate with their "fun lovin'" club!

Oh I can't wait for the response.

The reason that "affirmative action" is still used is because of the lopsidedness of power in the US. That is, most people in positions of power ie/government, business executives etc., are still 1)white and 2)men. Why is this? Because of the historical advantage white men have over not only other races, but over the other sex. Maybe it is only me, but when I look around, I can see the pull for white men to hire other white men.

I am a graduate student, and when I go to research meetings, and meet professionals in my field, I can FEEL the advantage I have because I am a white man, all of the other old white dudes cozy up to me. I know in part this is because of my research etc., but I can't deny that this is in part becuase many of the people around me are a different color.

Why is it that workplaces sholdn't strive to have a diverse group of employees, or that government and big business shouldn't be filled with diversity? I am in complete agreeance that "the best man or woman for the job" should get hired, or accepted into college or whatever, but, as many people will fight to the death to deny, there is still an advantage to being white, which in trying to even out this advantage sometimes leads to disadvantages.

On the whole, reading many of the posts on topic, it sounds like people are flat out scared that their advantage is being stripped of them, and now they will have to be just as good (and in some situations, for the time, better) than the black person standing beside them.

As a side thought, I don't know one white person who has never been admitted to a college or university. All of my friends, even those with poor GPA's and average SAT's got into a college or university.

Call me a f@#$ing democrat liberal whatever you want, I'm speaking from my experiences, not necissarily from theory. I see it all around me, and to be honest, there is a comforting feeling that when I move on to get a job that I will have an easier time. On the flip side, If I don't get a job and a black man or woman does, so be it....who is to know if they are more deserving, or if it is because a hiring policy? It is an easy excuse to blame it on a hiring policy instead of admitting that that person is better than me, which is probably the case.

As for affirmative action, I personally do not feel that it is racist to consider one's life (and other) experience when considering that person for admission into a college or on a job interview. In fact, experience is usually a bonus when applying for a job, and why shouldn't it be when applying to a university.

Those are my thoughts

"Is Cbid on some sort of extreme right-wing list of bbs' to use?"

------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking for myself, I found this BB as a result of a link on Smoke Magazine's list of BBs to use ... but I must admit, a big part of what I like about this BB is that there ARE a lot of clear-headed thinkers here and very few of the extreme left-wing wacko nutjobs that are so plentiful in real life here in the SF area ...

You think that the NAACP still has a needed place!

That smacks of racism there or do they speak for you?

Have they elevated your cause or stature? Now you have to pay back what was given?

many liberal groups in the continent are considerd racist by Alaskan, Hawaiian, and Indian descent.

By Ken Hamblin

Special to the Denver Post

Sunday, January 26, 2003 - Just as I predicted, white Democrats have unleashed their black fellows to launch a bloodthirsty attack against President George W. Bush because of his opposition to the University of Michigan's race-based quota system. The Michigan system gives preference to potential black students by giving them an automatic 20 points on their entrance evaluation simply because they are black.

That means when a black and a white student apply, the white student is automatically down 20 points in a 150-point system of measurement that also includes geography, alumnus connections, writing skills, personal achievement, leadership and service.

He or she loses in a category labeled "miscellaneous," where 20 points are applied simply for being among the "underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education."

If that isn't racial discrimination, I don't know what is.

Of course we all know the policy was designed by the university to fulfill its desire to integrate the campus with black students to create a diversified student body.

Unfortunately, based on the preferential 20-point system, the black students they get could be among the students who the U.S. public education system failed to prep for anything approaching higher education.

Nonetheless, the liberal academics' solution to campus diversification has been to create a social backhoe designed to scoop up even academically crippled black students from flawed schools in urban American ghettos and deliver them as poster students to the increasingly flawed altar of affirmative action.

It worked for quite a while, too. That is, until Barbara Grutter, a white applicant to the University of Michigan Law School, cried foul and decried the policy for what it is: racial discrimination, plain and simple.

She publicly exposed it as a strain of academic bigotry, one that exists at many other institutions of higher learning.

It is a brand of U.S.-sanctioned prejudice in the best tradition of the former all-white South African government. What else can you call decisions being made based only on, of all things, the color of a student's skin?

After much hand-wringing, President Bush stood pat and last week announced that the administration would file a friend-of-the-court brief in opposition to the university's discriminatory policies with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Roger Wareham, a leading attorney in the African-American demand for slave reparations, was quick to scathe President Bush for opposing the university's race- based admissions policies in arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The inability of some among the black intelligentsia to see the University of Michigan's policy for what it is smacks of a deadly strain of political and racial myopia. It's stupidity for stupidity's sake, because they think it will benefit black students who would otherwise be discriminated against.

One of the producers of my syndicated talk-radio show spent a day trying to uncover an affirmative-action advocate who was willing to defend a system that so obviously gives preference to someone based solely on the color of his or her skin while claiming that system is not a form of racial discrimination.

She failed to find a single person among the NAACP, The Black Congressional Caucus and several other African-American organizations because the scoundrels are fully aware that it is wrong, and thus have gone to ground.

They've run for cover for two reasons: First, because their position isn't defendable. And second, because they believe that no matter how twisted their logic or outlandish their position may be, if they cry loudly enough, eventually guilt-ridden white America will concede and roll over to their demands.

jdrabinski.. you are a hypocrite. You say "no one knows sh*t" here.. but you claim to "Know" that I have no ability to know why I was turned down for my scholarship.

I have a GREAT ABILITY to know why I was turned down.. Its called a telephone call. I called one of the Advisors for the scholarship. I met him in Georgia during my tour of the campus. He told me directly that they were looking for more diversity. Nothing else to it....

Why do you both get off topic.. The discussion isnt "OTHER REASONS BUFFALLO DIDNT GET HIS SCHOLARSHIP HE WANTED".. it is about discrimination.

Now.. Spence brought up a few points... thank you..

One being that white people are advantaged in the business world.

I am not experienced (old) enought to see the advantage that white people have in business.. I have see people discriminate against language barriers.. but that is economics and not racism..

What I have seen are the "diverse" people that know they are hired on for Affirmative Action sitting on their butts doing nothing. The bad part is that they know they can get away with it. The best thing they do is take long lunch breaks so they have less time to bother other people..

What my point gets down to... and this is what I want to hear someone argue.. is that I would like to see equality. You want a job to be a shoe salesman, then the man with the best ability to sell shoes, and worst ability to smell... gets the job...

Ezell

Buff.. you gotta be thick skinned around these parts... and to wait for an answer from the Procrastinator... well I hope your not holding your breath!!!! when he is cornered on having to answer he just simply moves about slamming someone else on the BB...IMO I think the man has traites simular to that movie Cible...to read his postings they sure lean that way...more than one personality at a time...

Hog

Ezell

Years ago when my then-wife was working for the CIA, I applied to work in their photo division. They toured me all around the HQ compound, taking me deep into the bowels of the darkroom, cooing and fawning over my practical OTJ experience. But you know what? They wouldn't hire me because I was self-taught with my photo skills. They said I needed a college diploma in order to get hired. They would rather have in-experienced college grads. who read about it than people with the initiative to teach themselves by actually doing it.

Oh well, everything happens for a reason.

Chris

That's not the same thing as discrimination.

True, it may appear discriminatory to those without college diplomas. But likely the decision was based on a rule that the new hire be college educated.

Why? Because "experience" is often subjective and difficult to discern. Making a degree a prerequisite is the "easy" way to find people familiar with the required skills without needing to verify resume "facts" that are often beefed up.

The down side is losing someone like yourself who has more real-world experience and would likely be a contributor in much less time.

And it's not discriminatory because everyone is afforded the opportunity to attend college and earn a degree.

When are we going to stop blaming white America for the poor lot in life many groups of people have?

Why is the human tendency to gravitate towards "your own type" considered evil?

Black Americans have every opportunity to succeed in today's society.

Look at the Asian population in America. Here's a group who not only look different than the "whites", but oftentimes have a language barrier and/or heavy accent that infuriate some and simply frustrate others. Yet, they not only do well in America, they actually are doing BETTER than white Americans as a group.

Did we raise them to some lofty status because they are Asian? Or did they succeed by their own merit?

I'm not twisting facts and I'm certainly not pulling any punches.

If there is any segment of white America that is truly doing a disservice to the citizens of color, it is the Liberal Left.

How often can the poor hear from the left that they are "owed" something? That we have "kept them down" and they can't rise up without the governments funds?

Jesse Jackson has possibly destroyed more dreams than the Great MLK created.

Anti-Discrimiation laws are needed in this country.

Pro-discrimination practices (Affirmative Action) are not.