[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter]

While fairness is important, the point is promoting someone with lesser ability (IQ or academic) into an environment they are not equipped to excel in ultimately leads to their undoing.

It is the law of unintended consequence.[/quote]

But you and I disagree about their being unable to excel. Admittedly, they would have a higher failure/attrition rate, but many of them would succeed, and those are the students who the Affirmative Action folks are trying to protect and encourage.[/quote]

But why would you stack the deck against them?

Nationwide, African American graduation rate is only at 40%. In California, after prop 209, African American graduation rate is 70%. Of course the national rate includes states such as CA and Michigan that disallow racial preference. So essentially graduation rate is 100% better when you don’t create artificial mismatch of students and schools.

[ocrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=ocrenter]
Essentially the majority will always try to use their raw number to suppress the minority, as Hispanics become California’s majority, they will also do their very best to suppress other minorities. I actually fear the new Hispanic majority more than I fear the old white majority as the Hispanic is going in with the idea that they are disadvantaged and need all of these extra rights.[/quote]

What extra rights are you talking about?

When Hispanics become the majority then won’t benefit from affirmative action anymore. This not about the person sponsoring the bill but the eventual end-result of policy.

As you pointed out, Hispanics enrollment has increased. I personally believe that we are seeing a shift in demographics with more urban professionals from Latin America sending their kids to UC.

As Hispanics increase to become the majority, by sheer numbers, there will be some thousands bright kids who have the grades it takes to enroll at UC.

The chart/data you provided shows that Hispanic enrollment, with an initial drop which makes perfect sense, increased since Prop 209.

Looking objectively at SCA5, it will benefit Blacks first, Hispanics somewhat, and Whites when they become a minority. Not good for Asians.[/quote]

As long as Hispanics are underrepresented compared to their proportion in the overall population, this admendment will be used to extract extra rights.

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter][quote=AN]I never understand the mindset of people like CAR. They’re so willing to give disadvantaged teens a leg up at the university level, yet they vehemently oppose giving the same disadvantaged kids a leg up at the elementary/middle/high school level. If they’re so inclined to have quotas at the University level, why not do the same for the elementary/middle/high school level?[/quote]

Because now it interferes with the unions, which has a lock on secondary schools.

It is ok to push the Asians aside at the college level to satisfy that guilt about disadvantaged minorities (no union members were hurt in the process). But it is not ok to make actual reform that makes a difference because union toes would be step upon.[/quote]

It has nothing at all to do with unions, and I don’t think anyone wants to “push aside” any group of students, either. That’s not the focus of Affirmative Action (which, as I’ve pointed out, I’m opposed to…I’m just trying to explain the thought process of those who advocate for it).

People who push for the preferential treatment of certain disadvantaged minorities do so out of a concern for fairness. The circumstances into which one is born (SES status, IQ, etc.) are no more the fault of the child than the color of their skin. When you insist on admitting students that simply have a higher IQ, then you are “pushing aside” the students who don’t. Either way, someone is being pushed aside due to circumstances that are beyond their control. So, while you might think that discriminating based on IQ (and, usually, family resources) is more “fair,” others think that trying to help those who have had a more difficult childhood and/or are born with a lower IQ is more fair. IMO, there is no right or wrong, it’s just a matter of different perspectives.[/quote]

While fairness is important, the point is promoting someone with lesser ability (IQ or academic) into an environment they are not equipped to excel in ultimately leads to their undoing.

It is the law of unintended consequence.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN]I never understand the mindset of people like CAR. They’re so willing to give disadvantaged teens a leg up at the university level, yet they vehemently oppose giving the same disadvantaged kids a leg up at the elementary/middle/high school level. If they’re so inclined to have quotas at the University level, why not do the same for the elementary/middle/high school level?[/quote]

Because now it interferes with the unions, which has a lock on secondary schools.

It is ok to push the Asians aside at the college level to satisfy that guilt about disadvantaged minorities (no union members were hurt in the process). But it is not ok to make actual reform that makes a difference because union toes would be step upon.

[ocrenter]

[quote=livinincali]

I really don’t get this mindset that somehow giving people that are already at a significant disadvantage an opportunity is worthwhile. They already have a system in place that allows these students to prove themselves in Community Colleges and earn their way in UC or Cal State schools. Why are we allowing disadvantaged groups to run up a bunch of debt in a 4 year college that they’re likely to fail at? Get a part time job, and go to a community college. If you figure out you can hack it then transfer.[/quote]

Because it makes people like CAR “feel better.” 40 years of treating liberal bleeding hearts and we are nowhere better at fixing the chronic disadvantage of Hispanics and Blacks.

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter]They end up with lower graduation rates because they start out at a severe disadvantage. As you know, most Asians and many/most whites in the UC system have very supportive families who have always made sure their kids had the resources to succeed.[/quote]

The debate isn’t that they are starting at a position of disadvantage, we all agree that is the case. The point is how to help them succeed.

[quote=CA renter]It doesn’t hurt them, but it won’t guarantee that they will succeed in schools as well as the Asian and white populations do, either. [/quote]

What in the world??? Of course the disadvantage hurt. That’s what makes it a disadvantage. The disadvantage hurt by reducing chances of success. That’s how it hurts.

[quote=CA renter]
IMO, most of the “exceptional” students will succeed anyway. The quota system is there to give others a fighting chance. [/quote]

But that’s an argument for elimination of quota and affirmative action. The “exceptional” will ALWAYS do well. They are not the ones that need a bump up! If you have 100 students, and one of them is “exceptional”, do you elevate ALL 100 from a regional college to IVY league? The one “exceptional” student will succeed, and may even excel beyond expectation. What about the other 99 that’s NOT exceptional and landed in the IVY league or a prominent public school with cut throat competition? Those other 99 are going to sink and fail.

So if you are working on a social strategy to uplift a disadvantaged people as a whole, do you institute a wholesale program that elevates that one “exceptional” student while guaranteeing the failure of the other 99? Or do you work on taking care of the said disadvantage early on so by the time they apply to colleges they can compete on their own two feet?

[quote=CA renter]
And note that the black student population has also gone down since they eliminated AA at the universities. Asians, OTOH, seem to have fared about the same before and after Prop 209. But we also have to look at the population increases of various groups, and Hispanics have grown in number far faster than any of the other groups which might explain their increasing numbers. Whites, as a percentage of the population, have been decreasing (as have blacks, IIRC). Asians have been increasing, so the fact that their percentages at the universities are the same might mean there’s a slight decline as a percentage of the population. Not sure about any of that, though.[/quote]

Once you removed the affirmative action you saw the number of Asian Americans jump. Which brings to question the quota system of the IVY league, where the Asian population remains stuck at 15-20% despite population growth.

The white population in California did not drop 20% in 25 years. but that’s how much they dropped after prop 209. proving that affirmative action actually helped whites buffer against the Asians in the past.

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter]

I think you and some other posters have it all wrong on this. Back when Prop 209 passed, the Asian population was already disproportionately high in universities like UCLA. There was already a lot of energy behind racial quotas BEFORE Prop 209, especially because of Asians, not whites. IMO, too many people here have the mistaken belief that white people are racist and don’t want anyone else to succeed. As a white person, I find this to be incredibly ignorant and offensive. Most of us would much rather have a merit-based system over a racial quota system.

For those who would prefer a racial quota, it’s because they feel certain minorities (usually black and Hispanic) are being discriminated against, and they want them to have more opportunities for advancement. It is NOT out of self-interest that these white people want a quota system; they truly believe that certain minorities deserve an extra hand up because they are often starting from a less advantageous position. This is why the teachers’ unions advocate for racial quotas in many cases — they see firsthand how some minorities really have a lot more going against them from the beginning.[/quote]

I have no doubt people that support racial quota and affirmative action have good intentions. But just look at the graph, don’t you see the progressive and steady improvement the Hispanic population have made WITHOUT affirmative action since prop 209?

And please explain why minorities who received preferential admissions all end up with much lower graduation rate? Because they are set up for failure by being mismatched to a more competitive environment then they can handle.

There’s no question affirmative action hurts the students it intends to help, that’s the bottom line here.

[ocrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

Yes… and perhaps supported by Blacks also.
Grass roots Hispanics and Blacks tend to be lower class who would most benefit from affirmative action.

But, in a couple more decades, SCA5 may not work out so well for Hispanics when they become majority in the state.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. The Tea Party is very good a seizing issues and building moral outrage. Notice that they’ve been very silent. A similar issue is playing out differently in Michigan were there are few Asian. U of Michigan is pretty good… I can see Chinese investors buying houses all around Ann Arbor for their kids.[/quote]

Brian, that’s an excellent point, yes, Tea Party is UNUSUALLY silent on this issue. This is going to end up becoming a tool for affirmative admission of whites. They know it! Absolutely brilliant!

Ed “the Tool that had to settle for optometry school” Hernandez, when are you going to wake up?

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]SCA5 is actually a Hispanic initiated Bill. Essentially the majority will always try to use their raw number to suppress the minority, as Hispanics become California’s majority, they will also do their very best to suppress other minorities. I actually fear the new Hispanic majority more than I fear the old white majority as the Hispanic is going in with the idea that they are disadvantaged and need all of these extra rights.

As you mentioned, Asians benefiting from prop 209 was an unintended consequence the majority whites did not expect. I see the same with SCA5, whites and men will end up benefitting as they are now the under-represented group, something I’m sure the new Hispanic majority did not foresee.

I disagree Asians actually ever truly benefited from affirmative action, if so it was extremely short lived and limited. Remember, California history is filled with one racist law after another, all aimed right at Asian Americans, any potential benefit (real or perceived) will be quickly remedied.[/quote]Totally agree. At least with the white majority, they don’t feel they’re disadvantaged and need to create laws to make themselves less “disadvantaged” even when they become the majority, which they will be sooner rather than later.

I also disagree that Asians actually benefited from affirmative action. I don’t have data to back this up, but something tells me that it has always hurt the Asians. I know many first generation Asian immigrants who themselves work in blue collar jobs. However, they know full well that education is the way out and they pushed their kids to excel in education. So, just because 1st gen Asian immigrants were poor and uneducated doesn’t mean their kids were.[/quote]

This whole thing reminds me of the racist policy of Malaysia in favor of the “disadvantaged” majority Malays at the expense of the minority Chinese and Indians.

California, following the lead of racist Malaysia, how far have we fallen.

[ocrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

Like I said before, Prop 209 was a populist White based initiative. SC_5 is the same. The Tea Party is populist based, as is part of the Democratic party, especially the unions.

For all the talk about merit and objective measures of merit, people only want to selectively practice what they preach. They use political tools to suppress minorities that were not culturally adjusted. And now it’s coming to bite them in the butt.

These nativist, populist elements are seeing Prop 209 as a threat because of increasing Asian and Latino enrollment at the universities. The next logical step would be state and local government employment. For instance, all else being equal, should the district hire a fireman/policeman/employee who has a 4.0 gpa, or one who has a 3.1 gpa? How about one who has a bachelor over a HS diploma?

The truth is not all Asians are smart students (it must be hard for those who aren’t) but within the group, there is a big portion that values education and work very hard.

Latino immigrants were historically poor rural folks who could not compete at the university level. That is changing fast as there is more immigration from urban capitals. They have more resources and stay in touch with you friends and family thanks to Skype, WeChat, Line, Tango, etc…

I don’t believe it’s a question of race, but simply that first and second generation immigrants work harder. The demographics that we see are just a result of most of our immigration coming from Latin America and Asia. If you do a survey of a tech company you’ll see immigrants from Europe also (likely Eastern Europe) but fewer.

Incidentally, Asians benefited from Affirmative Action in the past. At one point, Asians used to be poor uneducated immigrants who worked mostly in restaurants, dry cleaners and other service jobs.

The world is changing. It’s a lot more structured with barriers to entry such aptitude tests, entrance exams… Big data also allows us to search and view a person’s history. That’s why executive who lie on their resume eventually get caught. We must adapt or perish.[/quote]

SCA5 is actually a Hispanic initiated Bill. Essentially the majority will always try to use their raw number to suppress the minority, as Hispanics become California’s majority, they will also do their very best to suppress other minorities. I actually fear the new Hispanic majority more than I fear the old white majority as the Hispanic is going in with the idea that they are disadvantaged and need all of these extra rights.

As you mentioned, Asians benefiting from prop 209 was an unintended consequence the majority whites did not expect. I see the same with SCA5, whites and men will end up benefitting as they are now the under-represented group, something I’m sure the new Hispanic majority did not foresee.

I disagree Asians actually ever truly benefited from affirmative action, if so it was extremely short lived and limited. Remember, California history is filled with one racist law after another, all aimed right at Asian Americans, any potential benefit (real or perceived) will be quickly remedied.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=flu]Well, at least one politician is opposed to this….

XXXXX,

I oppose SCA 5 as it is currently written. I do not support discrimination of any kind and believe that college admissions should be based upon academic and extracurricular factors.

Assemblymember Brian Maienschein

He gets my vote election time…[/quote]
He gets mine too. This is what his office has written back to me:

Thank you for taking the time to write in regarding SCA 5.

Assemblymember Maienschein shares your concerns and is currently opposed to this legislation as it is currently written.

Should you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you,

Lance Witmondt
Office of Assemblymember Brian Maienschein, 77th District
P-(858)675-0077[/quote]

I heard back from his office as well. I replied back with the following:

Rep Maienschein, thank you for writing back. I appreciate your opposition in regard to SCA 5.

I am extremely pessimistic in regard to our position. Given the Democrats do have an overwhelming majority, I do fear the practice of ochlocracy right here within our Great State of California.

What makes American Democracy work so well over our 238 year history is our willingness to protect minority rights. This is the fine line that separates true democracy from ochlocracy that is typical of sham democracies such as Egypt and Russia.

Arizona walked extremely close into total ochlocracy state with their most recent SB 1062. I fear California is going down the same path with SCA 5. Isn’t it amazing that while Arizona is beholden to extreme elements of the Republican party and California is beholden to extreme elements of the Democrats, these extreme forces are showing they are actually identical in their blatant disregard for the basic foundation of our democracy: protection of minority rights and basic fairness.

This is a tough and uphill battle we got ahead of us, as a minority under assault by the new majority, I ask for your help to keep our democracy a true democracy.

thank you,

xxx

[ocrenter]

[quote=flu][quote=ocrenter][img_assist|nid=17932|title=UC admission stat|desc=progressive Hispanic representation on UC campuses.|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=288]

This came from the Chinese language World Journal, which has had in depth coverage of the racist SCA-5.

Judging by the graph, the Whites are progressively declining in their enrollment while the Hispanics are gaining.

If this law passes, it will be used as a tool to affirmatively admit white students in the near future.[/quote]

Cool, then I can have my kid’s last name as “Smith” instead of “Hernandez”….[/quote]

haha… I think I’m better off changing over to “Washington” as I woud like to honor this country’s founding father. *wink*

[ocrenter]

[img_assist|nid=17932|title=UC admission stat|desc=progressive Hispanic representation on UC campuses.|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=288]

This came from the Chinese language World Journal, which has had in depth coverage of the racist SCA-5.

Judging by the graph, the Whites are progressively declining in their enrollment while the Hispanics are gaining.

If this law passes, it will be used as a tool to affirmatively admit white students in the near future.

[ocrenter]

[quote=harvey]BTW, why did “oriental” get replaced by “asian.” I never completely understood that one.

I say “asian” because it’s fewer syllables.

My mom still says “oriental” – many in her generation probably still do. I know she doesn’t mean any harm by it.

“Oriental” just means “eastern,” which is still used to describe that part of the world in other contexts.

Does this bill actually mention asians (or orientals) specifically?[/quote]

I have always thought of it as an overly PC campaign, although I do have to say I do prefer Asian over Oriental. And typically somebody that use the term Oriental generally just dated themselves to a birthdate going back to the 40’s.

I still remember the PC police back in the 80’s going around saying “we are not a rug.” But then Persians are rugs and a people all at the same time.

The Bill doesn’t mention Asians specifically, but then again, it doesn’t have to.

[ocrenter]

[quote=flu][quote=scaredyclassic]i always liked oriental avenue and the light blue properties on the monopoly board. they seemed reasonably priced, a decent value. then again, I always covet baltic and mediterranean, and have the greens and yellows. too ritzy for me. now i live in a green property. i’d probably prefer something in the purples, maybe st. charles, or tennessee avenue.[/quote]

Statistically, the best properties are the orange and red ones, with a second place going to the purple properties…….As one has the most chance of landing there… You have a pretty good chance of ending up in jail many times, and there’s a chance card that says go to illnois or st. charles place…[/quote]

Wow, tips on how to beat my daughter at the next game of Monopoly AND petitioning against racist legislation all in the same thread, nice!

[Author]

Posts