OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

What world do you live in? "American equals white"? Not for a long, long time. Turn on your TV--sports, sitcoms, movies, talk shows----diversity everywhere. Are we 100% there, but moving there fast and doing a good job of it.
Cannot agree much with you paragraph on sources of white privilege but that could get to be a long argument. The world she is a changing. Changing for the better. And will be soon lacking in need for affirmative action. Live a little longer like me and you will get a better perspective of the change that has taken place.

---

I'm living in the world in which the Asian-American conspirators in the MIT blackjack ring were whitewashed and replaced by white actors and actresses.

I'm living in the world in which shows based in Los Angeles/New York/San Francisco either (1) have token Asian-American characters or (2) have an Asian-American actress who serves as a love interest for a(n) (often dorky) white guy.

I'm living in a world where a TV show starring John Cho as the romantic lead with Karen Gillan as his love interest was cancelled before it got to their love story.

I'm living in a world in which the only show on broadcast television about an Asian-American family is one based in the 1990s, thereby rendering it incapable of providing an Asian-American voice on modern/current issues.

I'm living in a world in which there is no Asian-American voice to address modrn/current issues on a national level.

I'm living in a world in which people who look like me are assumed to be geeks or nerds.

I'm living in a world in which a NBA player was listed as "slow" and "unathletic," even though he proved himself to be faster than John Wall when they played against one another in a summer league game as rookies, just because he was Asian-American.

I'm living in a world in which even athletic careers are segregated by race.

I'm living in a world in which the legacy of systemic racism is still alive and well.

I don't need to live as long as you have to see the problems are still there. Sure, some progress may have been made, but (1) that doesn't mean the priblems have been resilved nor (2) that we should undo the policies that led to what progress that has been made. The aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder case proved how foolish it is to undo such policies.

Keep in mind, those observations were by an Asian-American. I'm sure my African-American, Latin-American, and Native American friends would be able to provide different observations about the wolds in which they live.

Sebastabear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

If you slightly tweaked this scheme and had the money going directly to the universities (as opposed to individual coaches and middlemen) and took out the fake test scores you could literally arrest entire ZIP Codes in Connecticut and the Silicon Valley.

---

Exactly what I was thinking. Surprised that some of these folks didn't just make the donation and buy a spot. I've had arguments with a lot of people on this issue. Personally, if somebody is willing to donate REAL money - mid to high 8 figures - to a school, then I think there's benefit to the student body as a whole and I have no problem with it. OTOH, when somebody buys a spot with $500K to $1M or so, I don't see how that can pay tuition for another kid or two over the long haul.

Sebasta would know more than I would, but my sense is that since Cal is a public school, it's much more difficult to buy a spot since there's supposed to be more transparency on the admissions process.

---

Spot on. Cal actually audits the hell out of this and the administrators are incredibly paranoid about even the appearance of favoritism to children of donors. I know they also look closely at the teams to see if the kids recruited as PWOs wind up playing. They definitely count them against the roster spots the coach can have - something other schools don't do.

---

How about brothers and sisters of student athletes who have played at Cal getting PWOs?

---

Regardless of what you think about the path Zach Maynard took to Cal, what's indisputable is that he was our starting quarterback. Not equivalent to this situation at all.

---

Sebastabear: OMG, how wrong you are. My post has nothing to do with Maynard. I have granddaughters in college now one of whom really wanted to go to Cal and was #3 at her HS with marks and test scores to do so. An athlete at Cal then had a sibling who was nowhere near the student as our family member (same high school) that got a PWO where the older sibling had pull. And never played the sport. Sorry, nothing about Maynard. You are too smart to get sucked in by conformational bias. I still love your posts though. And with the difficulty getting into Cal, plus my love and history with Cal you can imagine there is/was bitterness.

---

oops. My bad. I didn't get the reference so assumed it was a Zach Maynard allusion. Back to the drawing board.

---

Worry not. All is good. But we are not innocent, but not like $C at all.

01Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

What world do you live in? "American equals white"? Not for a long, long time. Turn on your TV--sports, sitcoms, movies, talk shows----diversity everywhere. Are we 100% there, but moving there fast and doing a good job of it.
Cannot agree much with you paragraph on sources of white privilege but that could get to be a long argument. The world she is a changing. Changing for the better. And will be soon lacking in need for affirmative action. Live a little longer like me and you will get a better perspective of the change that has taken place.

---

I'm living in the world in which the Asian-American conspirators in the MIT blackjack ring were whitewashed and replaced by white actors and actresses.

I'm living in the world in which shows based in Los Angeles/New York/San Francisco either (1) have token Asian-American characters or (2) have an Asian-American actress who serves as a love interest for a(n) (often dorky) white guy.

I'm living in a world where a TV show starring John Cho as the romantic lead with Karen Gillan as his love interest was cancelled before it got to their love story.

I'm living in a world in which the only show on broadcast television about an Asian-American family is one based in the 1990s, thereby rendering it incapable of providing an Asian-American voice on modern/current issues.

I'm living in a world in which there is no Asian-American voice to address modrn/current issues on a national level.

I'm living in a world in which people who look like me are assumed to be geeks or nerds.

I'm living in a world in which a NBA player was listed as "slow" and "unathletic," even though he proved himself to be faster than John Wall when they played against one another in a summer league game as rookies, just because he was Asian-American.

I'm living in a world in which even athletic careers are segregated by race.

I'm living in a world in which the legacy of systemic racism is still alive and well.

I don't need to live as long as you have to see the problems are still there. Sure, some progress may have been made, but (1) that doesn't mean the priblems have been resilved nor (2) that we should undo the policies that led to what progress that has been made. The aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder case proved how foolish it is to undo such policies.

---

A world of wrong has been done to Asians historically from its early days in California through the internment camps of the 40s. And yes, even after that up to current with many of the biases you note. But at the same time no other general group has had such success as Asians in America. The Vietnamese came with nothing and built up from that base. Koreans in many ways the same. Chinese have made their great strides of late even though they have been here the longest and the Japanese, with the exception of WWII where parents and grandparents of my generation did evil deeds because of fear and hatred, have to be considered the most successful and seemingly accepted Asian immigrants from day one. Things are better. Way, way better. Are they all good? Absolutely not, and you can chronicle that much better than me.

From my perspective I really wish other people of color could evolve to the same success as have the Asians in America. In some cases their successes are so successful that top end quotas are placed at Universities which is horrible in itself. The flip side of affirmative action.

Another Bear said:

---

Also skimmed an article, New Yorker? Basically it asked the obvious question - why didn't these folks just do what Jared Kushner's dad did at Harvard...make a large contribution before he applied. Of course he got in.

---

Several people have asked the same question in this thread. Why not just make an above the board donation? I can only assume the methods that were revealed in this scandal were cheaper.

So my serious question along those lines: what's the going rate for getting your kid into Furd or an Ivy via the "legitimate" donation route? Anyone on this board have any insights into that world?

Also, is that something public schools are even allowed to engage in?

OdontoBear66 said:

---

From my perspective I really wish other people of color could evolve to the same success as have the Asians in America. In some cases their successes are so successful that top end quotas are placed at Universities which is horrible in itself. The flip side of affirmative action.

---

Yeah - 01Bear should be thankful he's a model minority who can be paraded out by white people as an example for all people of color to show that they have nothing to complain about. If East and South Asians can suceed here, there can't possibly be any reason that other minorities would struggle.

Odonto - I assume you've done so innocently, but rhetoric like this is divisive and reeks of white privilege. The only wy this could have been more archetypal is if you typed this from a golf cart at Augusta.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is liberal whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

One is transparent and discussed. The other is a crime.

---

Nice try but I never argued against your distinction (crime versus not a crime). I only said that bribery by rich people is not a good argument for Affirmative Action. It's whataboutism. It's like saying "Blondes people cheat on their taxes more, so let's lower taxes on brunettes." No, let's enforce the tax laws more.

I concede your distinction but it's a point that is irrelevant to your original argument. Bribery and AA - both are wrong, crime or not. One doesn't justify the other.

---

Bribery is illegal, so yes it's wrong.

Regarding AA... yeah, you know, well, that's just like your opinion, man.

Do you understand the difference?

---

People!!! Can we just focus on our Stanfurd / SC schadenfreude!!! :-)

---

That would be "schadenfurderloser".

---

#teamwork!

---

#makesthedreamwork!

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

What world do you live in? "American equals white"? Not for a long, long time. Turn on your TV--sports, sitcoms, movies, talk shows----diversity everywhere. Are we 100% there, but moving there fast and doing a good job of it.
Cannot agree much with you paragraph on sources of white privilege but that could get to be a long argument. The world she is a changing. Changing for the better. And will be soon lacking in need for affirmative action. Live a little longer like me and you will get a better perspective of the change that has taken place.

---

I'm living in the world in which the Asian-American conspirators in the MIT blackjack ring were whitewashed and replaced by white actors and actresses.

I'm living in the world in which shows based in Los Angeles/New York/San Francisco either (1) have token Asian-American characters or (2) have an Asian-American actress who serves as a love interest for a(n) (often dorky) white guy.

I'm living in a world where a TV show starring John Cho as the romantic lead with Karen Gillan as his love interest was cancelled before it got to their love story.

I'm living in a world in which the only show on broadcast television about an Asian-American family is one based in the 1990s, thereby rendering it incapable of providing an Asian-American voice on modern/current issues.

I'm living in a world in which there is no Asian-American voice to address modrn/current issues on a national level.

I'm living in a world in which people who look like me are assumed to be geeks or nerds.

I'm living in a world in which a NBA player was listed as "slow" and "unathletic," even though he proved himself to be faster than John Wall when they played against one another in a summer league game as rookies, just because he was Asian-American.

I'm living in a world in which even athletic careers are segregated by race.

I'm living in a world in which the legacy of systemic racism is still alive and well.

I don't need to live as long as you have to see the problems are still there. Sure, some progress may have been made, but (1) that doesn't mean the priblems have been resilved nor (2) that we should undo the policies that led to what progress that has been made. The aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder case proved how foolish it is to undo such policies.

---

A world of wrong has been done to Asians historically from its early days in California through the internment camps of the 40s. And yes, even after that up to current with many of the biases you note. But at the same time no other general group has had such success as Asians in America. The Vietnamese came with nothing and built up from that base. Koreans in many ways the same. Chinese have made their great strides of late even though they have been here the longest and the Japanese, with the exception of WWII where parents and grandparents of my generation did evil deeds because of fear and hatred, have to be considered the most successful and seemingly accepted Asian immigrants from day one. Things are better. Way, way better. Are they all good? Absolutely not, and you can chronicle that much better than me.

From my perspective I really wish other people of color could evolve to the same success as have the Asians in America. In some cases their successes are so successful that top end quotas are placed at Universities which is horrible in itself. The flip side of affirmative action.

---

Uh oh, I'm having flashbacks of the countless hours I spent sleeping through my Asian American studies classes.

Let me distill all those hours of teaching into a few words

Model Minority Myth. NOT ALL ASIANS ARE FROM CHINA, JAPAN, KOREA or VIETNAM!!!!!!!

ducky23 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

What world do you live in? "American equals white"? Not for a long, long time. Turn on your TV--sports, sitcoms, movies, talk shows----diversity everywhere. Are we 100% there, but moving there fast and doing a good job of it.
Cannot agree much with you paragraph on sources of white privilege but that could get to be a long argument. The world she is a changing. Changing for the better. And will be soon lacking in need for affirmative action. Live a little longer like me and you will get a better perspective of the change that has taken place.

---

I'm living in the world in which the Asian-American conspirators in the MIT blackjack ring were whitewashed and replaced by white actors and actresses.

I'm living in the world in which shows based in Los Angeles/New York/San Francisco either (1) have token Asian-American characters or (2) have an Asian-American actress who serves as a love interest for a(n) (often dorky) white guy.

I'm living in a world where a TV show starring John Cho as the romantic lead with Karen Gillan as his love interest was cancelled before it got to their love story.

I'm living in a world in which the only show on broadcast television about an Asian-American family is one based in the 1990s, thereby rendering it incapable of providing an Asian-American voice on modern/current issues.

I'm living in a world in which there is no Asian-American voice to address modrn/current issues on a national level.

I'm living in a world in which people who look like me are assumed to be geeks or nerds.

I'm living in a world in which a NBA player was listed as "slow" and "unathletic," even though he proved himself to be faster than John Wall when they played against one another in a summer league game as rookies, just because he was Asian-American.

I'm living in a world in which even athletic careers are segregated by race.

I'm living in a world in which the legacy of systemic racism is still alive and well.

I don't need to live as long as you have to see the problems are still there. Sure, some progress may have been made, but (1) that doesn't mean the priblems have been resilved nor (2) that we should undo the policies that led to what progress that has been made. The aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder case proved how foolish it is to undo such policies.

---

A world of wrong has been done to Asians historically from its early days in California through the internment camps of the 40s. And yes, even after that up to current with many of the biases you note. But at the same time no other general group has had such success as Asians in America. The Vietnamese came with nothing and built up from that base. Koreans in many ways the same. Chinese have made their great strides of late even though they have been here the longest and the Japanese, with the exception of WWII where parents and grandparents of my generation did evil deeds because of fear and hatred, have to be considered the most successful and seemingly accepted Asian immigrants from day one. Things are better. Way, way better. Are they all good? Absolutely not, and you can chronicle that much better than me.

From my perspective I really wish other people of color could evolve to the same success as have the Asians in America. In some cases their successes are so successful that top end quotas are placed at Universities which is horrible in itself. The flip side of affirmative action.

---

Uh oh, I'm having flashbacks of the countless hours I spent sleeping through my Asian American studies classes.

Let me distill all those hours of teaching into a few words

Model Minority Myth. NOT ALL ASIANS ARE FROM CHINA, JAPAN, KOREA or VIETNAM!!!!!!!

---

Exactly. Some of them are from Asia.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

What world do you live in? "American equals white"? Not for a long, long time. Turn on your TV--sports, sitcoms, movies, talk shows----diversity everywhere. Are we 100% there, but moving there fast and doing a good job of it.
Cannot agree much with you paragraph on sources of white privilege but that could get to be a long argument. The world she is a changing. Changing for the better. And will be soon lacking in need for affirmative action. Live a little longer like me and you will get a better perspective of the change that has taken place.

---

I'm living in the world in which the Asian-American conspirators in the MIT blackjack ring were whitewashed and replaced by white actors and actresses.

I'm living in the world in which shows based in Los Angeles/New York/San Francisco either (1) have token Asian-American characters or (2) have an Asian-American actress who serves as a love interest for a(n) (often dorky) white guy.

I'm living in a world where a TV show starring John Cho as the romantic lead with Karen Gillan as his love interest was cancelled before it got to their love story.

I'm living in a world in which the only show on broadcast television about an Asian-American family is one based in the 1990s, thereby rendering it incapable of providing an Asian-American voice on modern/current issues.

I'm living in a world in which there is no Asian-American voice to address modrn/current issues on a national level.

I'm living in a world in which people who look like me are assumed to be geeks or nerds.

I'm living in a world in which a NBA player was listed as "slow" and "unathletic," even though he proved himself to be faster than John Wall when they played against one another in a summer league game as rookies, just because he was Asian-American.

I'm living in a world in which even athletic careers are segregated by race.

I'm living in a world in which the legacy of systemic racism is still alive and well.

I don't need to live as long as you have to see the problems are still there. Sure, some progress may have been made, but (1) that doesn't mean the priblems have been resilved nor (2) that we should undo the policies that led to what progress that has been made. The aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder case proved how foolish it is to undo such policies.

---

A world of wrong has been done to Asians historically from its early days in California through the internment camps of the 40s. And yes, even after that up to current with many of the biases you note. But at the same time no other general group has had such success as Asians in America. The Vietnamese came with nothing and built up from that base. Koreans in many ways the same. Chinese have made their great strides of late even though they have been here the longest and the Japanese, with the exception of WWII where parents and grandparents of my generation did evil deeds because of fear and hatred, have to be considered the most successful and seemingly accepted Asian immigrants from day one. Things are better. Way, way better. Are they all good? Absolutely not, and you can chronicle that much better than me.

From my perspective I really wish other people of color could evolve to the same success as have the Asians in America. In some cases their successes are so successful that top end quotas are placed at Universities which is horrible in itself. The flip side of affirmative action.

---

You realize your cherrypicking of subgroups within the larger Asian-American group (1) ignores significant members of the Asian-American community (including Hmong, and other overlooked and often poorer immigrant communities), (2) ignores the data on the Vietnamese-American community (see, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/fact-sheet/asian-americans-vietnamese-in-the-u-s-fact-sheet/) showing they are not doing as well relative to other Asian-American groups, (3) ignores that the "positive results" you see among the sub-communities you selected is also significantly impacted by the higher number of educated and more affluent immigrants, and (4) further falsely suggests that there are "good minorities" (read: model minorities) and "bad minorities," right?

I get that you're probably a genertion or two older than I, but your arguments are beyond outdated. If I didn't know better, I would suggest they were intended to cause offense. However, I believe they were honestly made in an effort to discuss the Asian-American story. That said, I would encourage you to do a litle more reaearch into the field. At th very least, the model minority myth is problematic (and was identified as such, even before I was an undergrad at Cal) in how it treats all Asian-Americans as a monolithic group (which parts are indistinguishable from one another) and serves to turn Asian-Americans into club to batter other people of color. Given that the obstacles that each minority group faced in the U.S. is and has been different, treating us as all having faced the same ones is nonsensical.

01Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

What world do you live in? "American equals white"? Not for a long, long time. Turn on your TV--sports, sitcoms, movies, talk shows----diversity everywhere. Are we 100% there, but moving there fast and doing a good job of it.
Cannot agree much with you paragraph on sources of white privilege but that could get to be a long argument. The world she is a changing. Changing for the better. And will be soon lacking in need for affirmative action. Live a little longer like me and you will get a better perspective of the change that has taken place.

---

I'm living in the world in which the Asian-American conspirators in the MIT blackjack ring were whitewashed and replaced by white actors and actresses.

I'm living in the world in which shows based in Los Angeles/New York/San Francisco either (1) have token Asian-American characters or (2) have an Asian-American actress who serves as a love interest for a(n) (often dorky) white guy.

I'm living in a world where a TV show starring John Cho as the romantic lead with Karen Gillan as his love interest was cancelled before it got to their love story.

I'm living in a world in which the only show on broadcast television about an Asian-American family is one based in the 1990s, thereby rendering it incapable of providing an Asian-American voice on modern/current issues.

I'm living in a world in which there is no Asian-American voice to address modrn/current issues on a national level.

I'm living in a world in which people who look like me are assumed to be geeks or nerds.

I'm living in a world in which a NBA player was listed as "slow" and "unathletic," even though he proved himself to be faster than John Wall when they played against one another in a summer league game as rookies, just because he was Asian-American.

I'm living in a world in which even athletic careers are segregated by race.

I'm living in a world in which the legacy of systemic racism is still alive and well.

I don't need to live as long as you have to see the problems are still there. Sure, some progress may have been made, but (1) that doesn't mean the priblems have been resilved nor (2) that we should undo the policies that led to what progress that has been made. The aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder case proved how foolish it is to undo such policies.

---

A world of wrong has been done to Asians historically from its early days in California through the internment camps of the 40s. And yes, even after that up to current with many of the biases you note. But at the same time no other general group has had such success as Asians in America. The Vietnamese came with nothing and built up from that base. Koreans in many ways the same. Chinese have made their great strides of late even though they have been here the longest and the Japanese, with the exception of WWII where parents and grandparents of my generation did evil deeds because of fear and hatred, have to be considered the most successful and seemingly accepted Asian immigrants from day one. Things are better. Way, way better. Are they all good? Absolutely not, and you can chronicle that much better than me.

From my perspective I really wish other people of color could evolve to the same success as have the Asians in America. In some cases their successes are so successful that top end quotas are placed at Universities which is horrible in itself. The flip side of affirmative action.

---

You realize your cherrypicking of subgroups within the larger Asian-American group (1) ignores significant members of the Asian-American community (including Hmong, and other overlooked and often poorer immigrant communities), (2) ignores the data on the Vietnamese-American community (see, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/fact-sheet/asian-americans-vietnamese-in-the-u-s-fact-sheet/) showing they are not doing as well relative to other Asian-American groups, (3) ignores that the "positive results" you see among the sub-communities you selected is also significantly impacted by the higher number of educated and more affluent immigrants, and (4) further falsely suggests that there are "good minorities" (read: model minorities) and "bad minorities," right?

I get that you're probably a genertion or two older than I, but your arguments are beyond outdated. If I didn't know better, I would suggest they were intended to cause offense. However, I believe they were honestly made in an effort to discuss the Asian-American story. That said, I would encourage you to do a litle more reaearch into the field. At th very least, the model minority myth is problematic (and was identified as such, even before I was an undergrad at Cal) in how it treats all Asian-Americans as a monolithic group (which parts are indistinguishable from one another) and serves to turn Asian-Americans into club to batter other people of color. Given that the obstacles that each minority group faced in the U.S. is and has been different, treating us as all having faced the same ones is nonsensical.

---

hmmm...you must have been the one who was actually awake in my class

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

From my perspective I really wish other people of color could evolve to the same success as have the Asians in America. In some cases their successes are so successful that top end quotas are placed at Universities which is horrible in itself. The flip side of affirmative action.

---

Yeah - 01Bear should be thankful he's a model minority who can be paraded out by white people as an example for all people of color to show that they have nothing to complain about. If East and South Asians can suceed here, there can't possibly be any reason that other minorities would struggle.

Odonto - I assume you've done so innocently, but rhetoric like this is divisive and reeks of white privilege. The only wy this could have been more archetypal is if you typed this from a golf cart at Augusta.

---

I'm willing to cut Odonto some slack. I'm assuming he was at Cal during the early days of the Ethnic Studies revolution. I doubt he has the benefit of the research and scholarship many of us younger Bears had when we were in college. I honestly believe he meant to suggest that it would be better/best if all people of color could achieve success (similar to that which has been achieved by Asian-Americans). I don't think he was intending to cause offense with his comment.

That said, I would encourage him to do a bit of research and maybe take some Asian-American studies classes. Those classes would probably help him to see why the arguments he made aren't exactly so helpful.

ducky23 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

What world do you live in? "American equals white"? Not for a long, long time. Turn on your TV--sports, sitcoms, movies, talk shows----diversity everywhere. Are we 100% there, but moving there fast and doing a good job of it.
Cannot agree much with you paragraph on sources of white privilege but that could get to be a long argument. The world she is a changing. Changing for the better. And will be soon lacking in need for affirmative action. Live a little longer like me and you will get a better perspective of the change that has taken place.

---

I'm living in the world in which the Asian-American conspirators in the MIT blackjack ring were whitewashed and replaced by white actors and actresses.

I'm living in the world in which shows based in Los Angeles/New York/San Francisco either (1) have token Asian-American characters or (2) have an Asian-American actress who serves as a love interest for a(n) (often dorky) white guy.

I'm living in a world where a TV show starring John Cho as the romantic lead with Karen Gillan as his love interest was cancelled before it got to their love story.

I'm living in a world in which the only show on broadcast television about an Asian-American family is one based in the 1990s, thereby rendering it incapable of providing an Asian-American voice on modern/current issues.

I'm living in a world in which there is no Asian-American voice to address modrn/current issues on a national level.

I'm living in a world in which people who look like me are assumed to be geeks or nerds.

I'm living in a world in which a NBA player was listed as "slow" and "unathletic," even though he proved himself to be faster than John Wall when they played against one another in a summer league game as rookies, just because he was Asian-American.

I'm living in a world in which even athletic careers are segregated by race.

I'm living in a world in which the legacy of systemic racism is still alive and well.

I don't need to live as long as you have to see the problems are still there. Sure, some progress may have been made, but (1) that doesn't mean the priblems have been resilved nor (2) that we should undo the policies that led to what progress that has been made. The aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder case proved how foolish it is to undo such policies.

---

A world of wrong has been done to Asians historically from its early days in California through the internment camps of the 40s. And yes, even after that up to current with many of the biases you note. But at the same time no other general group has had such success as Asians in America. The Vietnamese came with nothing and built up from that base. Koreans in many ways the same. Chinese have made their great strides of late even though they have been here the longest and the Japanese, with the exception of WWII where parents and grandparents of my generation did evil deeds because of fear and hatred, have to be considered the most successful and seemingly accepted Asian immigrants from day one. Things are better. Way, way better. Are they all good? Absolutely not, and you can chronicle that much better than me.

From my perspective I really wish other people of color could evolve to the same success as have the Asians in America. In some cases their successes are so successful that top end quotas are placed at Universities which is horrible in itself. The flip side of affirmative action.

---

You realize your cherrypicking of subgroups within the larger Asian-American group (1) ignores significant members of the Asian-American community (including Hmong, and other overlooked and often poorer immigrant communities), (2) ignores the data on the Vietnamese-American community (see, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/fact-sheet/asian-americans-vietnamese-in-the-u-s-fact-sheet/) showing they are not doing as well relative to other Asian-American groups, (3) ignores that the "positive results" you see among the sub-communities you selected is also significantly impacted by the higher number of educated and more affluent immigrants, and (4) further falsely suggests that there are "good minorities" (read: model minorities) and "bad minorities," right?

I get that you're probably a genertion or two older than I, but your arguments are beyond outdated. If I didn't know better, I would suggest they were intended to cause offense. However, I believe they were honestly made in an effort to discuss the Asian-American story. That said, I would encourage you to do a litle more reaearch into the field. At th very least, the model minority myth is problematic (and was identified as such, even before I was an undergrad at Cal) in how it treats all Asian-Americans as a monolithic group (which parts are indistinguishable from one another) and serves to turn Asian-Americans into club to batter other people of color. Given that the obstacles that each minority group faced in the U.S. is and has been different, treating us as all having faced the same ones is nonsensical.

---

hmmm...you must have been the one who was actually awake in my class

---

Lol!

Dude, I was usually the guy who would throw minkey wrenches into discussion groups. In one class, we were talking about what is Asian-American identity. People were wondering whether Asian children adopted and raised by white parents in the U.S. were still Asuan-American. I decided to approach the issue from a different direction by bringing up former Cal great Scott Fujita.

It was fun watching the GSI flounder.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

If you slightly tweaked this scheme and had the money going directly to the universities (as opposed to individual coaches and middlemen) and took out the fake test scores you could literally arrest entire ZIP Codes in Connecticut and the Silicon Valley.

---

Exactly what I was thinking. Surprised that some of these folks didn't just make the donation and buy a spot. I've had arguments with a lot of people on this issue. Personally, if somebody is willing to donate REAL money - mid to high 8 figures - to a school, then I think there's benefit to the student body as a whole and I have no problem with it. OTOH, when somebody buys a spot with $500K to $1M or so, I don't see how that can pay tuition for another kid or two over the long haul.

Sebasta would know more than I would, but my sense is that since Cal is a public school, it's much more difficult to buy a spot since there's supposed to be more transparency on the admissions process.

---

Spot on. Cal actually audits the hell out of this and the administrators are incredibly paranoid about even the appearance of favoritism to children of donors. I know they also look closely at the teams to see if the kids recruited as PWOs wind up playing. They definitely count them against the roster spots the coach can have - something other schools don't do.

---

How about brothers and sisters of student athletes who have played at Cal getting PWOs?

---

Regardless of what you think about the path Zach Maynard took to Cal, what's indisputable is that he was our starting quarterback. Not equivalent to this situation at all.

---

Sebastabear: OMG, how wrong you are. My post has nothing to do with Maynard. I have granddaughters in college now one of whom really wanted to go to Cal and was #3 at her HS with marks and test scores to do so. An athlete at Cal then had a sibling who was nowhere near the student as our family member (same high school) that got a PWO where the older sibling had pull. And never played the sport. Sorry, nothing about Maynard. You are too smart to get sucked in by conformational bias. I still love your posts though. And with the difficulty getting into Cal, plus my love and history with Cal you can imagine there is/was bitterness.

---

oops. My bad. I didn't get the reference so assumed it was a Zach Maynard allusion. Back to the drawing board.

---

Worry not. All is good. But we are not innocent, but not like $C at all.

---

I don't always agree with you, but on this, you are probably correct.

OaktownBear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that ...

Corruption is America.

---

USC, the last bastion for the ignorant rich.

Seriously though, everyone always knew you can undeservingly buy your way into an elite private school, I'm more surprised the feds are cracking down.

---

It's one thing if your kid has the same qualifications as another and you pay to get him/her in. Cheating on SAT's with crooked proctors and test takers crosses an even further line.

---

Serious question: How so?
IIRC, the SAT and ACT tests are conducted by private corporations. There is no requirement that any school use these tests for admissions considerations. There's also no requirement that these tests be applied equally across the board to all test-takers. Why, then, is paying for additional time or paying for a substitute test taker "crossing the line?" Sure, it violates a sense of fair-play, but if it's not illegal, why is it any worse than hiring test-prep tutors?

---

Baseball umpires are employed by a private organization. Is it wrong for a player to bribe umpires for preferential treatment? Is that akin to hiring a batting coach.

My kid has a test prep tutor. She is trying to do the best she can. She and I recognize how lucky she is to have the resource. We also recognize it is unfair some kids are disadvantaged by not having that resource. We also support schools using tactics to try and even the playing field for these kids. But her being born to a family with more money than some and less than others is part of the unfairness of life. Using resources you have to be better at something is not gaming the system. It is not cheating.

---

Not going to disagree with this but a Key (the key?) selling point of the ACT and the SAT has supposedly been that 'tutoring doesn't matter". Of course that is horse bleep but it is also why a decent number of schools are trying to get away from putting as much weight on the tests as they have in the past. I will have broader thoughts on this thread below.....

I am surprised I didn't see what is particularly irksome to me in this thread - that this underscores the sheer immorality (and it is immoral) of the non-revenue sports in the NCAA. The reason that this "worked' is that the kids making the F'ING STANFORD SAILING TEAM are not, I repeat, NOT West Oakland or Richmond. They are kids of privilege, whose "athletic" careers are built on the backs (literally) of kids who overwhelmingly are from communities of color that play in the revenue sports and who are CHEATED out of the time they would need to pursue their academic careers to the same extent that "Olympic" sports are.

If you are not ready to blow the whole system up - paying BB and FB player and making everything else a club - you do not have a moral center.

While universities have always let in rich kids in place of better-qualified poorer kids in exchange for big bribes, er, donations, the massive inequality in today's USA makes this far more vicious than before. I thought this was a fantastic article (incidentally, the Atlantic is controlled by Steve Jobs' former wife, a billionaire philanthropist):

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/

The 10/1/0.1% is building up its own wealth and strengthening the walls to keep the others out, while talking about other s%#@ and championing other issues. Americans are great at self-deceit, anything to believe that they are good people. Love these charity balls where the wealthy gather to donate trinkets, further "progressive" issues and feel good about themselves, while homeless starve and the vast majority work hard to barely scrape by.

No wonder Trump's core is pissed off and easily misled.

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

Things change. For example, you used two movies to illustrate that minorities do not play major roles in stories about them. One movie is 68 years old and the other 30 years old.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Quote:

---

Further, your argument is the real point at which I'm driving. Fundamentally, all the parents did was utilize their resources to better the odds of success for their kids. Yes, it runs afoul of traditional notions of fair play, but as you suggested, that's part of the unfairness of life. As a result, I'm not seeing the mythical line being crossed, based on such notions.

---

My sense is the line being crossed that led to prosecution was the element of tax fraud. Absent that, I'm not sure any of this goes anywhere.

When you set aside the tax fraud (which includes money laundering, etc.), the crime basically is "honest services" mail fraud from 18 U.S.C. 1346. "Honest services" mail fraud comes from a vague statute that prosecutors love to rely on (see here for an explanation). It's been narrowed by SCOTUS (in Skilling, 2010) to more or less the following: "fraudulent schemes to deprive another of honest services through bribes or kickbacks supplied by a third party who has not been deceived". It was also the statute the feds relied on to go after Baylor coaches who engaged in recruiting violations. It's essentially a way to criminalize conduct that is wrong but for which there is no other statutory crime.

Seems to me that in and of itself, this wasn't what the feds really care about but they use it to widen the net and then they get to rope in conspiracy, racketeering, etc.

---

I think this is generally correct. What happened here doesn't seem like the crime of bribery, as I understand it. Other than the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which doesn't apply here, I don't think its illegal to "bribe" a private party as occurred here. I believe a bribe needs to be paid to a public official, so payments in connection with admissions to a public school could be illegal.

If you read the court filing, after the main guy flipped, the feds had him call all of his old clients to have them confirm that tax fraud aspects - receipt of something of value in exchange for payments that were characterized as donations.

The other potentially criminal act(s) would be those who cheated on the SAT/ACT or if any test scores/applications were submitted under penalty of perjury and, as you pointed out, mail fraud type of charges.

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

Things change. For example, you used two movies to illustrate that minorities do not play major roles in stories about them. One movie is 68 years old and the other 30 years old.

---

OK. I would STRONGLY recommend to you T. Coates, "The Case for Reparations" (and then some good economic history of the US in the 20th Century).

One of the keys (the key?) to understanding the unique challenges faced by African Americans is the systemic and systemic racism practiced in the US housing markets during the 1940s through the early 1960s. Why this is so important is that it denied 2 generations of African Americans a (the?) key mechanism American families have built and then passed on wealth - home equity. Add in the unequal way we fund schools (and restrict enrollment in schools based on geography) and it isn't hard at ALL to understand why, in broad terms and at the aggregate level, a higher percentage of African Americans face intergenerational poverty.

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

Things change. For example, you used two movies to illustrate that minorities do not play major roles in stories about them. One movie is 68 years old and the other 30 years old.

---

Fair enough, there's also _Birth_of_the_Dragon_, _42_, _Glory_Road_, _The_Blind__Side_, and _Green_Book_.

There's also the continued whitewashing of Asian-Americans from film roles based on real-life Asian-Americns including in _The_Big_Short_ and _21_.

Or the whitewashing of Asian-American roles from fictional roles that were originally Asian/Asian-American, including in the films _Ghost_in_the_Shell_ and _Dr._Strange_.

This doesn't even begin to address the paucity of roles (especially lead roles) for Asian-American actors and actresses, which is a separate (if related) problem. Further, it ignores the problem I mentioned earlier concerning the scarcity of opportunities for Asian-American voices in storytelling (e.g., writing, directing).

The greatest change that's taken place in these past 70 years is that blackface and yellowface are no longer acceptable. Even as the the lack of diversity remains.

Berkeleyside today

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Berkeleyside today

---

Thanks for the link. My personal interest in this comes from the family story that when my parents were looking at homes in the Berkeley Hills in the early 1960s there were no for sale signs so that the agents could "screen" those who were not the right skin color. They almost had a house pulled from them when, after getting ready to sign the contract, the agent found out that my sister is AA.

Another Bear said:

---

---

Is this what LSJU means when they brag about their Olympic sports being self sufficient?

01Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

Things change. For example, you used two movies to illustrate that minorities do not play major roles in stories about them. One movie is 68 years old and the other 30 years old.

---

Fair enough, there's also _Birth_of_the_Dragon_, _42_, _Glory_Road_, _The_Blind__Side_, and _Green_Book_.

There's also the continued whitewashing of Asian-Americans from film roles based on real-life Asian-Americns including in _The_Big_Short_ and _21_.

Or the whitewashing of Asian-American roles from fictional roles that were originally Asian/Asian-American, including in the films _Ghost_in_the_Shell_ and _Dr._Strange_.

This doesn't even begin to address the paucity of roles (especially lead roles) for Asian-American actors and actresses, which is a separate (if related) problem. Further, it ignores the problem I mentioned earlier concerning the scarcity of opportunities for Asian-American voices in storytelling (e.g., writing, directing).

The greatest change that's taken place in these past 70 years is that blackface and yellowface are no longer acceptable. Even as the the lack of diversity remains.

---

Thank You! I executive produced Glory Road and am very proud of it. I was a ball boy on the '65 Texas Western Miners team.

Fundamentally, the parents crossed an ethical line by breaking the law and cheating on college tests. If 01Bear can't see the difference between the former and "doing everything for your kid," then s/he can't distinguish between right and wrong. That's sad.

Their kids were too stupid to get into the schools and the parents were too stupid to use their money correctly (and legally) to get them into the schools. It seems that intelligence has at least some genetic component.

juarezbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

Things change. For example, you used two movies to illustrate that minorities do not play major roles in stories about them. One movie is 68 years old and the other 30 years old.

---

Fair enough, there's also _Birth_of_the_Dragon_, _42_, _Glory_Road_, _The_Blind__Side_, and _Green_Book_.

There's also the continued whitewashing of Asian-Americans from film roles based on real-life Asian-Americns including in _The_Big_Short_ and _21_.

Or the whitewashing of Asian-American roles from fictional roles that were originally Asian/Asian-American, including in the films _Ghost_in_the_Shell_ and _Dr._Strange_.

This doesn't even begin to address the paucity of roles (especially lead roles) for Asian-American actors and actresses, which is a separate (if related) problem. Further, it ignores the problem I mentioned earlier concerning the scarcity of opportunities for Asian-American voices in storytelling (e.g., writing, directing).

The greatest change that's taken place in these past 70 years is that blackface and yellowface are no longer acceptable. Even as the the lack of diversity remains.

---

Thank You! I executive produced Glory Road and am very proud of it. I was a ball boy on the '65 Texas Western Miners team.

---

I'll be honest, I liked the film. I was disappointed that it focused on the Coach Don Haskins's story instead of the story of his players. I'm not saying he wasn't important, but when is Hollywood going to give the person of color a voice in desegregation stories?

TandemBear said:

---

Fundamentally, the parents crossed an ethical line by breaking the law and cheating on college tests. If 01Bear can't see the difference between the former and "doing everything for your kid," then s/he can't distinguish between right and wrong. That's sad.

---

Again, I specificaly said aside from the legal aspect, how are the two different? I'll concede there is a difference, but it's a difference of degree, not kind. In both instances, the parents are using resources available to them (as a result of their wealth) to provide benefits to their kids that are unavailable to kids without access to those resources.

01Bear said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Fundamentally, the parents crossed an ethical line by breaking the law and cheating on college tests. If 01Bear can't see the difference between the former and "doing everything for your kid," then s/he can't distinguish between right and wrong. That's sad.

---

Again, I specificaly said aside from the legal aspect, how are the two different? I'll concede there is a difference, but it's a difference of degree, not kind. In both instances, the parents are using resources available to them (as a result of their wealth) to provide benefits to their kids that are unavailable to kids without access to those resources.

---

Well, I don't think it's illegal to have another person take a college admissions test for your child. So by that definition, it makes the action OK? I don't get how you can possibly find this acceptable. It's wrong and if the college or college testing board finds out, they take action, regardless of the lack of (edit) legal issues.

01Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

What world do you live in? "American equals white"? Not for a long, long time. Turn on your TV--sports, sitcoms, movies, talk shows----diversity everywhere. Are we 100% there, but moving there fast and doing a good job of it.
Cannot agree much with you paragraph on sources of white privilege but that could get to be a long argument. The world she is a changing. Changing for the better. And will be soon lacking in need for affirmative action. Live a little longer like me and you will get a better perspective of the change that has taken place.

---

I'm living in the world in which the Asian-American conspirators in the MIT blackjack ring were whitewashed and replaced by white actors and actresses.

I'm living in the world in which shows based in Los Angeles/New York/San Francisco either (1) have token Asian-American characters or (2) have an Asian-American actress who serves as a love interest for a(n) (often dorky) white guy.

I'm living in a world where a TV show starring John Cho as the romantic lead with Karen Gillan as his love interest was cancelled before it got to their love story.

I'm living in a world in which the only show on broadcast television about an Asian-American family is one based in the 1990s, thereby rendering it incapable of providing an Asian-American voice on modern/current issues.

I'm living in a world in which there is no Asian-American voice to address modrn/current issues on a national level.

I'm living in a world in which people who look like me are assumed to be geeks or nerds.

I'm living in a world in which a NBA player was listed as "slow" and "unathletic," even though he proved himself to be faster than John Wall when they played against one another in a summer league game as rookies, just because he was Asian-American.

I'm living in a world in which even athletic careers are segregated by race.

I'm living in a world in which the legacy of systemic racism is still alive and well.

I don't need to live as long as you have to see the problems are still there. Sure, some progress may have been made, but (1) that doesn't mean the priblems have been resilved nor (2) that we should undo the policies that led to what progress that has been made. The aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder case proved how foolish it is to undo such policies.

---

TandemBear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Fundamentally, the parents crossed an ethical line by breaking the law and cheating on college tests. If 01Bear can't see the difference between the former and "doing everything for your kid," then s/he can't distinguish between right and wrong. That's sad.

---

Again, I specificaly said aside from the legal aspect, how are the two different? I'll concede there is a difference, but it's a difference of degree, not kind. In both instances, the parents are using resources available to them (as a result of their wealth) to provide benefits to their kids that are unavailable to kids without access to those resources.

---

Well, I don't think it's illegal to have another person take a college admissions test for your child. So by that definition, it makes the action OK? I don't get how you can possibly find this acceptable. It's wrong and if the college or college testing board finds out, they take action, regardless of the lack of (edit) legal issues.

---

That goes to the other excluded point (sense of fair play). Really, it's seems your disaprobation is as to the violation of the sense of fair play. Yet, this depends on drawing an arbitrary line as to ehat is fair play and what isn't. I'm asking (1) what is the place where the line is drawn? and (2) why is it drawn there?

I get that it's easy to give a knee-jerk reaction and say "that's wrong!" But that's intellectually lazy.

okaydo said:

---

01Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

I always bring up this kind of stuff when people argue against Affirmative Action.

---

This is just as wrong.

---

No. One is designed to remedy wrongs resulting from systemic racism. The other is designed to provide further advantages to wealthy (usually white and privileged) kids.

---

No, one is an insult - insinuating that members of protected groups aren't capable. The other is designed to provide advantages to whoever can afford it regardless of their group membership.

---

Actually, no. There is no assumptuon thay members of protected groups aren't capable, except by those whose inherent beliefs suggest that to be the case. In the U.S., affirmative action is a means to level the playing field that has long been tilted in favor of white Americans at the expense of people of color. From generational wealth to access to more and better resources tied to residence to government benefits (e.g., g.i. bill), white Americans have received additional benefits that have systematically tilted the field in their favor - - - even outside of such abhorrent policies as slavery, genocide of Native Americans, and race-based concentration camps.

Sure, not all whote Americans received the initial benefits. But all of them receive the white privilege that was installed as a result of the benefits. It's no coincidence that most major Hollywood films are written, produced, directed by, and star white people. It's no coincidence that the "default" normative character in these stories is a white male. It's no coincidence that people of color are turned into supporting characters in films about their stories (e.g., _Glory_, _Go_For_Broke_). America is set up in such a way that "American" equals "white" and everyone else is part of "the other."

Affirmative action is designed to counteract this narrative by providing people of color with an opportunity to access sime of the resources and benefits that were denied them (and given instead to white Americans) for generations. It does not pretend that people of color are incapable of achieving the same successes, if anything, affirmtaction has revealed that when given the same opportunities, people of color can achieve the same successes as their white counterparts.

---

What world do you live in? "American equals white"? Not for a long, long time. Turn on your TV--sports, sitcoms, movies, talk shows----diversity everywhere. Are we 100% there, but moving there fast and doing a good job of it.
Cannot agree much with you paragraph on sources of white privilege but that could get to be a long argument. The world she is a changing. Changing for the better. And will be soon lacking in need for affirmative action. Live a little longer like me and you will get a better perspective of the change that has taken place.

---

I'm living in the world in which the Asian-American conspirators in the MIT blackjack ring were whitewashed and replaced by white actors and actresses.

I'm living in the world in which shows based in Los Angeles/New York/San Francisco either (1) have token Asian-American characters or (2) have an Asian-American actress who serves as a love interest for a(n) (often dorky) white guy.

I'm living in a world where a TV show starring John Cho as the romantic lead with Karen Gillan as his love interest was cancelled before it got to their love story.

I'm living in a world in which the only show on broadcast television about an Asian-American family is one based in the 1990s, thereby rendering it incapable of providing an Asian-American voice on modern/current issues.

I'm living in a world in which there is no Asian-American voice to address modrn/current issues on a national level.

I'm living in a world in which people who look like me are assumed to be geeks or nerds.

I'm living in a world in which a NBA player was listed as "slow" and "unathletic," even though he proved himself to be faster than John Wall when they played against one another in a summer league game as rookies, just because he was Asian-American.

I'm living in a world in which even athletic careers are segregated by race.

I'm living in a world in which the legacy of systemic racism is still alive and well.

I don't need to live as long as you have to see the problems are still there. Sure, some progress may have been made, but (1) that doesn't mean the priblems have been resilved nor (2) that we should undo the policies that led to what progress that has been made. The aftermath of the Shelby County v. Holder case proved how foolish it is to undo such policies.

---

---

I'm not sure what your argument is supposed to be here, Okaydo.

If you feel having another person take a college test for your child as crossing an "arbitrarily-drawn line," then I don't know what to say!

Would you want the pilot of your next airplane to have had another person take the certification tests instead? Since requiring the actual person flying the plane to pass certification is based on "arbitrary lines," then this would be just fine according to this approach.

And how would you feel if your child had been denied flight school by that very same person who cheated their way in? Wouldn't that matter to you? Or would you simply take the cheating one step further to ensure that you "out-cheated" the other cheaters?

Similarly, is Lance Armstrong the real victim? He just out-cheated the other professional dopers. He beat them at their own game, right? And this is true, to a very high degree. However, he still crossed a line. Several lines, actually. Lines very clearly stated, and not based on arbitrary or capricious rules.

TandemBear said:

---

If you feel having another person take a college test for your child as crossing an "arbitrarily-drawn line," then I don't know what to say!

Would you want the pilot of your next airplane to have had another person take the certification tests instead? Since requiring the actual person flying the plane to pass certification is based on "arbitrary lines," then this would be just fine according to this approach.

And how would you feel if your child had been denied flight school by that very same person who cheated their way in? Wouldn't that matter to you? Or would you simply take the cheating one step further to ensure that you "out-cheated" the other cheaters?

Similarly, is Lance Armstrong the real victim? He just out-cheated the other professional dopers. He beat them at their own game, right? And this is true, to a very high degree. However, he still crossed a line. Several lines, actually. Lines very clearly stated, and not based on arbitrary or capricious rules.

---

So what is the line? Where do you draw it?

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that the cheating was good or right. Rather, I'm saying that fundamentally, it was not much different than other uses of resources (by those with access to such) for the benefit of their offspring. If you disagree, great! Please explain how it's not.