We really are pathetic victims of discrimination. We are victims of this and discriminated by that. I have facts and research that proves how victimized we are. Besides us, others (JEWS) are discriminate against too, but are too successful to deserve racial preferences. Bush has privileges, so anyone who is his gender and ethnicity deserves reprisal discrimination. Whitey controls the world, and must be brought down to size. Victims cannot be racist; and my group is truly the most victimized people. Pre-judging anyone by race is not racism, because racism can only be defined by the victim. We are not irrational, devoid of rational thought, and immoral though we endorse group punishments for the sins of their (the privileged oppressors) ancestors though the people we are actually punishing today are not guilty. We only want to use racial discrimination in a positive way to counteract racial discrimination, because we are victims. We don’t need to be rational or moral, because we are victims. And victim, diversity, victim, disparity, equality, level plying field, discrimination, Whitey created AIDS, Churches’ chicken is drugged, narcotics are drugs –why don’t you arrest a pharmacist instead of a street dealer?, you are racist, because we are victims, we are right.

Can anyone provide any other justification for supporting either racial/sexual preferences or group punishments?

On March 6, 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which mandated that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.

LBJ framed the underlying rationale behind affirmative action best in his June 4, 1965 Howard University Commencement Address, in which he stated:

<link>

"The voting rights bill will be the latest, and among the most important, in a long series of victories. But this victory--as Winston Churchill said of another triumph for freedom--"is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society--to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. It is the right to be treated in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and promise to all others.

FREEDOM IS NOT ENOUGH

But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."

Further numerous court cases starting with Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) and reaffirmed in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) have affirmed that race may be one "factor" in college admissions to meet the compelling state interest of "diversity."

You should read up some more on this subject before spouting off your nonsense.

so you do this by discriminating against another group,,and thereby doing the very thing you want to eliminate...gotcha...

Seeking out women and minority applicants and candidates does not discriminate invidiously against anyone.

Further athletes, musicians, people that speak foreign languages, and legacies receive affirmative action, but I don't hear you squealing about that.

Gotcha Back

that does not change one thing i said..to pick someone over someone else SOLEY because of skin color IS discrimination, and no amount of weasling will change that FACT. no mattter who says its not..

So you appear to be under the impression that schools or employers pick some candidates SOLELY because of skin color.

Interesting!

Wrong. But interesting!

It's illegal in this country to pick a candidate SOLELY on the basis of race. This has been documented in numerous cases including and most notable Brown v Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Oh yeah, it also violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment

Nice Try though Scooter.

It is evident from the original poster and you o.i. that neither one of you knows enough about affirmative action to argue rationally about it.

look spanky, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it must be a duck..your still weasling...

If what talks like a duck?

You're talking nonsense.

You raised a point. I dismissed it summarily and your response is, "if it walks like a duck, it must be a duck!"

Very well reasoned on your part. It's difficult to find flaw in such impeccable logic.

are you always this obtuse? or are you letting the color of your skin cloud your senses?

Are you always this misinformed about subjects you seek to discuss?

How can anyone live in this world and not understand that preference for one group is discriminating against the other? Officially codifying discrimination is immoral and irrational.

Universities use race as one factor among many to choose candidates. There is no preference for one group.

You are mis and under informed.

Further justification for Affirmative Action:

<link>

"Admissions directors cite several reasons for wanting to keep the numbers as equal as possible. Balance makes social life easier. It also helps schools attract the best candidates of both sexes: When the gender balance tilts to a 60-40 ratio, favoring either gender, students are less interested in attending. "