"I wish I was White" Options

[bijou]

I'm not going to quote anyone but seriously, to lambast me for using African countries as examples? C'mon!! If some had actually read my post, you would see that I clearly stated that anyone can be a bigot but that the way power is delegated, it's whites that have it in ample amounts regardless of the Condoleezas, Oprahs..........I find it absurd to use the few black women and men to prove a point when I NEVER said there aren't blacks in positions of power. Of course, you would have had to read my entire post to grasp that fact.

And to those who say blacks are for affirmative action, that's a misnomer. I know many blacks who are opposed to it just as I know whites who are for. The fact is that prejudice against people of color; namely blacks, prevents them from even being considered for certain jobs, let alone, be hired. I've heard so many people say BET is racist against whites because their programming is black-oriented. Hmmm well why was BET created in the first place? Precisely, because there weren't visible minorities ie. blacks on the major networks, there still aren't enough.

I wish society and people in positions of power were all fair and equitable but they aren't. That is why affirmative action can be a good thing and I stress, can. It's a shame that some aren't given the opportunity to succeed for whatever reason-s.

Lawyers for the NAACP have fought and won cases in which whites were excluded because of affirmative action and there are many such cases but the intention of AA is a good one and can prove fruitful.

It is sad that some aren't proud of their heritage, that people are discriminated against because of their nationality, appearance etc. Look at the situation in Paris, it was bound to happen. So many of the youth complain that they aren't given the opportunity because they are visible minorities and have muslim surnames. The violence isn't acceptable but I can understand their frustration. Hopefully, positive things will happen as a result.

Hopefully, things will change for better, everywhere. One can hope! We can also help!

[*disco infiltrator*]

edit: for sammi's post

i mean what are you trying to say? since you said  you both have the same credentials, and the college could only choose one, wouldnt it also be wrong if the college picked you instead?   so its a no win situation. so when it comes down to it, and you guys are basically the same, the college can only pick who would be more beneficial to them, a black person to diverse their college, makes them look better. i mean what else can they do? they would do the same if it was a mostly black college, they would pick a white person over a black person to make themselves look better.

and what you said about if a black girl and you have the same credentials and the school would pick the black girl instead anyways. that not necessarily true. the only time that happens is when the school has a very low percentage of blacks, and they want to make themselves look better.Its not like its the law. you say like thats the case all the time. more of the time its vice versa, for example, true story,  my dad once applied for a higher position at his job a few years ago. he's was District manager of best buy.(which means he manages all the best buys in his district). now, he was competing with a white guy, who happened to be my dad's friend. his name was Kurt. my dad had a way better record than kurt, and better credentials and everything. and my dad was working at that position longer. but guess what? Kurt got the Job. Now my dad could've went on about how Kurt got the job for no Justified reason, and he couldve even made comments about "what if i was white? would things have turned out different?" but he didnt. my dad was dissapointed, but never said anything about "its because of he was white" so i dont understand why you guys are so quick to jump to that conclusion every time a black person beats you out in something. besides, look at the college that your going to, there is most likely going to be about only 3% of blacks in the freakin' school. so big flippin' deal if one black beats you out in something. and the blacks getting 5 extra points thing, i know thats not rue, maybe in some places, but not everywhere, heck not in most places. so you shouldnt generalize a thing that they may do where you live and assume thats what happens everywhere. because i definately wouldnt agree with getting 5 extra points because im black.

On the contrary, the extra points are true. You get 5, Asians get 3, etc. etc. I'm not lying. It's not just in Indiana. It's a nationwide thing. Please, Indiana would probably be the last state to want to impose affirmative action laws....There's a big hubub right where I live about race issues, and I'm posting a topic on it tomorrow once I gather sufficient information for you all.

And, what I was saying about the college thing - in most cases, colleges try to accept minority races over whites. In my scenario, the college could have picked both me and the black girl. When colleges have choices between two equally qualified people, they will go with the minority and reject the white person to make room for more minorities. It happens.

Here's some main points from the article below, about the school I want to go to, UCLA:
"These documents reveal that in 1993, over 5,200 applicants were competing for 350 spaces in the fall entering class at the UCLA School of Law. Upon receiving UCLA's admission decisions, at least 52 of these applicants may have been very surprised.

Thirty of these 52 were rejected despite their GPA's of 3.5 and higher and LSAT scores above the 92nd percentile. Three of these 30 identified themselves as Asian; the other 27 identified themselves as white or declined to state their race (W/DS)."

"In contrast, 22 of these 52 were offered admission although 13 who identified themselves as black had GPA's of less than 3 and LSAT scores below the 80th percentile; six who identified themselves as Latino had GPA's of less than 2.94 and LSAT scores below the 71st percentile; and three who identified themselves as Native American Indian had GPA's of less than 3 and LSAT scores below the 71st percentile."

"In summary, the documents show that some W/DS and Asian applicants with high academic qualifications were rejected while some blacks, Latinos and Native Americans with far less academic qualifications were offered admission. In contrast, W/DS and Asian applicants in this same lower range were not offered admission. The documents also show that average academic qualifications still allowed for the admission of blacks, Latinos and Native Americans, but virtually eliminated the possibility of admission for W/DS and Asian applicants."

RACE MATTERS AT UCLA

by Allan J. Favish

[Part of this article, in modified form, was first published in the Los Angeles Daily News on December 11, 1994. The entire article, in modified form, was first published in the Los Angeles Daily Journal on January 10, 1995, p. 6. The Los Angeles Daily Journal is the city's primary newspaper for the legal community.]

For many years controversy has raged over whether employers, schools and other institutions give preference to lesser qualified individuals on the basis of race. Because these institutions fail to release meaningful statistics about their practices, they invite speculation that there is something to hide.

In late 1993 I saw a document displayed in the reception area of the admissions office at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, that said race was a factor in some of its admission decisions. I wondered to what extent race was a factor, so I wrote a letter to the dean of admissions, Michael Rappaport, asking for the race, grade point averages, Law School Admission Test scores and admission decisions for the applicants to the 1993 entering class.

My letter stated that I did not want names or any other information that would violate a particular identifiable individual's privacy. I noted my right to the information under California's Public Records Act (Cal.Gov.Code § 6250), which is similar to the federal Freedom of Information Act. Dean Rappaport responded with a letter stating that the information was "not available." I wrote again, saying, in part, "I do not know what you mean by this. Did the records ever exist? If they existed, have they been lost or destroyed? Do they exist, but are 'unavailable' because you simply do not want to give them to me?" My letter closed with a citation to legal authority establishing my right to a statement under penalty of perjury explaining why the documents were "unavailable."

Since I did not receive a further response, I filed a lawsuit against the Regents of the University of California and Michael Rappaport for an injunction compelling them to give me the documents. Before the action went to trial the defendants gave me the documents that were supposedly "not available."

These documents reveal that in 1993, over 5,200 applicants were competing for 350 spaces in the fall entering class at the UCLA School of Law. Upon receiving UCLA's admission decisions, at least 52 of these applicants may have been very surprised.

Thirty of these 52 were rejected despite their GPA's of 3.5 and higher and LSAT scores above the 92nd percentile. Three of these 30 identified themselves as Asian; the other 27 identified themselves as white or declined to state their race (W/DS).

In contrast, 22 of these 52 were offered admission although 13 who identified themselves as black had GPA's of less than 3 and LSAT scores below the 80th percentile; six who identified themselves as Latino had GPA's of less than 2.94 and LSAT scores below the 71st percentile; and three who identified themselves as Native American Indian had GPA's of less than 3 and LSAT scores below the 71st percentile.

No offer of admission was made to any W/DS applicant having a GPA less than 3 and an LSAT score below the 80th percentile. This was despite the fact that 10 of the rejected W/DS applicants in this lower range had GPA's equal to or above 2.9 and LSAT scores equal to or above the 75th percentile -- a feat matched by only one of the 22 who were offered admission.

UCLA did more than simply reject 30 highly academically qualified W/DS and Asian applicants while offering admission to 22 blacks, Latinos and Native Americans with far lower academic qualifications. It also treated academically average individuals in a manner that suggests that race was a large factor in the admissions decision.

Among applicants with GPA's ranging from below 3.3 down to 2, and LSAT percentile scores ranging from below the 84th down to the 50th, 42 of 122 blacks, 32 of 155 Latinos and three of 18 Native Americans were offered admission, while none of the 201 Asian and only one of the 453 W/DS applicants in this range was offered admission. This was despite the fact that among those in the upper level of this range, whose GPA's ranged from below 3.3 down to only 3, and whose LSAT percentile scores ranged from below the 84th down to only the 75th, there were 127 W/DS and 35 Asian applicants.

It might be argued that race was not a significant factor in the admission offers to these 77 black, Latino and Native American applicants with average academic qualifications because they may have had other evidence of personal qualities warranting their admission. But that argument implies that only one of 654 W/DS and Asian applicants in this range had such evidence -- a dubious proposition.

There were 2,833 W/DS applicants. The Asian applicants totaled 1,051, while 487 were black, 563 were Latino and 73 were Native American. The rest were identified as Other (Non-White).

In summary, the documents show that some W/DS and Asian applicants with high academic qualifications were rejected while some blacks, Latinos and Native Americans with far less academic qualifications were offered admission. In contrast, W/DS and Asian applicants in this same lower range were not offered admission. The documents also show that average academic qualifications still allowed for the admission of blacks, Latinos and Native Americans, but virtually eliminated the possibility of admission for W/DS and Asian applicants.

UCLA School of Law publicly acknowledges that race is a factor in some of its admission decisions. The recently obtained documents help reveal the apparently large extent to which race, rather than individual academic merit, determines who can attend one of the nation's leading law schools. The documents also reveal that these institutions have something to hide.

A Daily Journal article on UCLA's admissions policy ("Class of '97 at UCLA Law Is Most Diverse," Dec. 19) said that according to Dean Susan Prager, the law school faculty had concluded that "UCLA had to make a contribution to bring minorities into the legal profession" and that the school "made a commitment to recruiting and retaining students of diverse backgrounds."

If the law school's decision that it "had" to do something and that it made a "commitment" to do something, is not the setting of a goal or target, then I don't know what is. Nevertheless, Dean of Admissions Rappaport is quoted as saying that the school has "no goals, targets or quotas." Perhaps Rappaport is unfamiliar with what the law school "had" to do and made a "commitment" to do, as revealed by Prager.

In the article, Rappaport, responding to my criticism, disputed the notion that minorities were given preferential status. But he admitted that race is a factor. This is nonsensical. If race is a factor in admissions, then somebody is given a racial preference and somebody else is given a racial disability. The documents I obtained indicate that in some cases, blacks, Latinos and Native Americans are being preferred and whites and Asians are being disabled -- all because of their race.

As evidence of UCLA's successful record, Rappaport cites the law school's most recent bar passage rate of 92.1 percent for graduates taking the exam for the first time. However, this statistic only shows the passage rate for those first-timers who took the exam. The statistic does not reflect students who dropped out or otherwise failed to get that far. I wonder what percentage of UCLA students whose race was an admission factor never got to the point of taking the exam, as compared with those students admitted without race being a factor?

Moreover, there are a few hundred thousand lawyers in this country. All of them passed a bar exam. However, as every practicing lawyer knows, some are better lawyers than others. This has nothing to do with race. Passing the bar exam merely means that a person has the minimum level of competency necessary to practice law. It does not indicate whether a person's level of practice will rise above that of the thousands of mediocre lawyers.

Because of the applicant pool they attract, some law schools don't have a realistic opportunity to significantly add to the number of lawyers who are better than mediocre. However, UCLA's applicant pool gives it an opportunity to produce lawyers who will not merely pass the bar exam, but become some of the nation's best lawyers. To the extent that race is an admissions factor, UCLA squanders that opportunity and loses its greatness.

If academic qualifications are the chief indicators of an individual's ability to study for and pass the bar exam, then logic dictates that the bar passage rate for the Class of 1996 probably will be less than it would have been had UCLA not rejected the 30 applicants with 3.5+ GPA's and 92+ percentile LSAT's, and offered admission to the 13 applicants with GPA's below 3 and LSAT percentiles below 80, the 6 applicants with GPA's below 2.94 and LSAT percentiles below 71, and the 3 applicants with GPA's below 3 and LSAT percentiles below 71.

The Daily Journal quotes Rappaport as saying that UCLA is "producing outstanding students, no matter what ethnicity." However, I have not heard Rappaport say that UCLA is producing the best students it can. Those who wish to lower standards for some individuals almost never talk about the concept of "the best."

Prager attributes the increased numbers of minority students to the efforts of the law school's faculty, beginning 25 years ago. But I have not heard her attribute the increased numbers of minority students to the efforts of the minority students themselves. Are black, Latino and Native American students more dependent on faculty members who make race an admissions factor or on their own ability to read, comprehend, critically analyze, logically think, write, and do the other things that lawyers must do?

Many of the lawyers who graduate from the law school will do work for the citizens of California. What do these citizens want UCLA to do -- produce the best possible lawyers or produce less than the best possible? I wonder how many Californians of any race, whose preservation of life or property is dependent on the skills of their lawyer, will thank UCLA for making available to them a lawyer who is less than the best possible?

The issue is whether there is a justification for UCLA to produce lawyers who are less than the best possible. Prager says students and faculty appreciate "an environment where there is a diversity of ideas and perspectives." What idea or perspective material to legal education will be neglected if there is no black, Latino or Native American student in UCLA's law school?

I am white, yet I believe that the 1964, '65 and '68 Civil Rights Acts are the best pieces of legislation passed in this century. I believe that ancestors of today's Native Americans were victims of mass murder. I am unaware of any idea or perspective that a black, Latino or Native American might have that is impossible for a white or Asian person to have. I am not aware of any evidence linking race with moral perspective or ideology. Nevertheless, apparently Rappaport, Prager and a majority of the UCLA law school faculty believe that simply having more nonwhite and non-Asian lawyers is sufficient justification for UCLA to produce lawyers who are less than the best possible. I wonder if the voters of California would agree.

Some black, Latino and Native American UCLA law students may have far better legal skills and may make far better lawyers than some white and Asian students. These minority students might have been offered admission even if their race was not a factor. However, thanks to UCLA's admissions policy, such black, Latino and Native American students now have suspect credentials. UCLA's policy has succeeded in stigmatizing, to a degree the Klu Klux Klan only could dream about, those black, Latino and Native Americans who could have gained admission without a racial preference.

Are there any black, Latino or Native American UCLA law students who would like to have won their admission strictly on the basis of their individual abilities, without regard to their race? Are there any who resent being stigmatized by UCLA as individuals who were not good enough for admission without consideration of their race and the race of their competitors? Are there any who wish to be judged on the content of their character rather than on the color of their skin?

[aera]

everyone at my school wants to be black for some reason. im not saying it's bad to be black, but the white people keep acting like the other black kids do and it's really annoying.

maybe she just wants to fit in. i'd be mad too, after all, america isnt made of all white people.

[AngryBaby]

On the contrary, the extra points are true. You get 5, Asians get 3, etc. etc. I'm not lying. It's not just in Indiana. It's a nationwide thing. Please, Indiana would probably be the last state to want to impose affirmative action laws....There's a big hubub right where I live about race issues, and I'm posting a topic on it tomorrow once I gather sufficient information for you all.

And, what I was saying about the college thing - in most cases, colleges try to accept minority races over whites. In my scenario, the college could have picked both me and the black girl. When colleges have choices between two equally qualified people, they will go with the minority and reject the white person to make room for more minorities. It happens.

Here's some main points from the article below, about the school I want to go to, UCLA:
"These documents reveal that in 1993, over 5,200 applicants were competing for 350 spaces in the fall entering class at the UCLA School of Law. Upon receiving UCLA's admission decisions, at least 52 of these applicants may have been very surprised.

Thirty of these 52 were rejected despite their GPA's of 3.5 and higher and LSAT scores above the 92nd percentile. Three of these 30 identified themselves as Asian; the other 27 identified themselves as white or declined to state their race (W/DS)."

"In contrast, 22 of these 52 were offered admission although 13 who identified themselves as black had GPA's of less than 3 and LSAT scores below the 80th percentile; six who identified themselves as Latino had GPA's of less than 2.94 and LSAT scores below the 71st percentile; and three who identified themselves as Native American Indian had GPA's of less than 3 and LSAT scores below the 71st percentile."

"In summary, the documents show that some W/DS and Asian applicants with high academic qualifications were rejected while some blacks, Latinos and Native Americans with far less academic qualifications were offered admission. In contrast, W/DS and Asian applicants in this same lower range were not offered admission. The documents also show that average academic qualifications still allowed for the admission of blacks, Latinos and Native Americans, but virtually eliminated the possibility of admission for W/DS and Asian applicants."

hmmm, can i ask a question? what is the percentage of minorities compared to whites at UCLA? i mean, you make it seem all so common that the colleges would be chock full of minorities and 3% whites. and, must i mention again that the big picture is, the only reason that some schools do this is because they have such a small amount of blacks or hispanics etc, and with that, they dont get their federal funds. they arent doing this without benefit . because if they have enough minorites they can care less about anyothers getting "special treatment". remember my little story about Kurt? it happens both ways. you dont think this stuff also happens to minorities? do you think that all colleges and work places just toss aside whites and give the jobs and spots to minorities? considering the Dean of your college, or Employer of your job, is most likely going to be caucasion, this is not very likey going to be common. because it'd be whites needing the "caucasion college funds", and when you would think of ghettos you'd think of caucasions, instead of african americans. and when i read that "we care about race" thing i thought it was going to be some kinda document that UCLA sent out. not a one sided investigation of a man who was probably caucasion himself.

[sadolakced acid]

Isn't it self-explanatory? There are more white people in managerial positions than black. It's not to say there aren't black CEOs, managers etc. but the status quo is what I said earlier.

White South Africans for example, many are racist {if you're comfortable with the word), they had much of the wealth although they weren't the majority of the population. In other African countries, whites make up less than 10% of the populace but own 85% of the wealth so in that sense, they are bigots who affect the lives of blacks and use "racism" and prejudice to their advantage.

Anyone can be a bigot, some are guilty of self-hatred but economically, socially, "racism" by whites can be far more damaging to society.

anyone who uses the white/black situation in south africa is quite misinforment.

white settlers were in south africa before the blacks. they (the dutch) populated it.

later, the blacks immigrated. yada-yada, aparthied happened, the blacks took the land from the whites, and drove the country into economic ruin.

well, it's getting there.

um, are you serious? being racist to any race is wrong.

yes i'm serious. so what?

[AngryBaby]

anyone who uses the white/black situation in south africa is quite misinforment.

white settlers were in south africa before  the blacks.    they (the dutch) populated it. 

later, the blacks immigrated.  yada-yada, aparthied happened, the blacks took the land from the whites, and drove the country into economic ruin.

well, it's getting there.

are you serious? if you are.......

the blacks took the land from the whites? have you even been to South africa? or at least seen how it is down there? and tell me, Out of what power did blacks come and take the land from the whites? considering blacks in south africa are still poor, and the whites stil have money . would this be so if it was a black country taken over by blacks?

[sadolakced acid]

well, that's the plan anyways.

to take the land from the whites and redistribute it.

and although i've never been to south africa, i know someone who used to live there, which is a world better than biased textbooks or newspapers.

[AngryBaby]

lol what are you taking about justin? lol a plan

[*disco infiltrator*]

hmmm, can i ask a question? what is the percentage of minorities compared to whites at UCLA? i mean, you make it seem all so common that the colleges would be chock full of minorities and 3% whites. and,  must i mention again that the big picture is, the only reason that some schools do this is because  they have such a small amount of blacks or hispanics etc, and with that, they dont get their federal funds. they arent doing this without benefit  . because if they have enough minorites they can care less about anyothers getting "special treatment". remember my little story about Kurt? it happens both ways. you dont think this stuff also happens to minorities?  do you think that all colleges and work places just toss aside whites and give the jobs and spots to minorities? considering the Dean of your college, or Employer of your job, is most likely going to be caucasion, this is not very likey going to be common. because it'd be whites needing the "caucasion college funds", and when you would think of ghettos you'd think of caucasions, instead of african americans. and when i read that "we care about race" thing i thought it was going to be some kinda document that UCLA sent out. not a one sided investigation of a man who was probably caucasion himself.

Don't try to tell me I'm wrong. I gave you solid facts of what is happening. You can't argue that it doesn't happen or is justified - it's not. No one should be rejected from anything based solely on your race.

Even if the colleges are doing it just for money, that's still wrong.

And actually, when I think of ghettos, the first thing that pops into my mind instantaneously is the Jewish ghettos made during World War 2 leading to the Holocaust since I've studied the Holocaust so much because of my family's history.

If you investigated UCLA's acceptance rate, you would find out the same information. How is it one-sided? He's using the same information you would find if you researched it.

Sure, I agree that if it was the 50s or something, affirmative action would direly be needed and I would fully support it. But it's not the 50s anymore. The same opportunity offered to me is offered to you, maybe even more to you depending on where you live (my school's pretty poor because of its size..we don't even offer any AP classes, and from what I've seen on this site, almost everyone on here is in or will be in AP classes, and since I can't take them, I will probably have to really, really work hard to convince UCLA to accept me since they will only accept whites with a majority of AP classes). You have a computer, obviously. You have access to the same amount of knowledge and the same kind of education I do. I learn more on the computer than I do in school so..yea. And the same opportunity offered to a white kid in a trailer park is offered to a black kid in Gary (30 minutes away from me). You can't tell me I'm wrong - I'm going off of statistics and facts. Solid facts cannot be disproven.

Yes, a lot of white people are in power, but as time increases, so do the number of minorities in power. It wasn't all too long ago that segregation was abolished. For a society to completely and utterly change its train of thought, it takes time. But the same opportunity that's available to you is available to me.

The main purpose of affirmative action is to make things equal, no? Well, it's not working. It's only putting people into places where they don't deserve to be. If they're not ready for the position they are recieving, based on the standards set to be there, then they will fail. The opportunity that both you and I have is not available to everyone. If that opportunity was available to all, then those people could succeed easier in society, and the standards to succeed would be equal for all, no matter what your skin color, which is what we should be pushing for. Allowing lowered standards for some is not going to help anyone succeed, because they are still inadequately qualified for the position they are recieving. If that is our aim, then the system is flawed. It's not achieving its goal.

[AngryBaby]

you live close to gary!? cool , my whole family is from gary.

sorry just thought id note that haha. anywho im gonna edit and type more no worries. im just being random, cus im tired.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Ask them if they've ever heard of Valparaiso.
'Twould be where I am.

Such close towns, but oh so different....

[blackxpearl]

I wouldn't be offended by it. My moms cousin or whatever stays in south africa and my mom told me stuff that happens there between blacks and whites, it's so racist, keeping everything she told me in mind, I wouldn't be offended, it's a whole different country, culture is different there and people aer treated different there.

[*Weird addiction*]

anyone who uses the white/black situation in south africa is quite misinforment.

white settlers were in south africa before  the blacks.    they (the dutch) populated it. 

later, the blacks immigrated.  yada-yada, aparthied happened, the blacks took the land from the whites, and drove the country into economic ruin.

That is SO not true. Africa (except north africa) is the black continent. Where in the world did you get your facts from? The blacks took the land from the whites? Are you serious? With what? This is shocking. Please show me where you got your facts from.

The dutch people COLONISED south africa.... Dutch people are originally from Holland not from south africa...

[*disco infiltrator*]

Justin, she's actually right. Boer War ring a bell?...

The Transvaal region is known to have been inhabited since the 8th century by Venda and Sotho peoples. In 1817, the region was invaded by tribes pushed from their land by the Zulu king Shaka and his Impis. These forced migrations, known as the Difaqane, made the region very weak, and easy to colonize by the nearby European settlers.

In the 1830s and the 1840s, descendents of Dutch and other settlers, collectively known as Boers (farmers) or Voortrekkers (pioneers), left the British Cape Colony, in what was to be called the Great Trek. With their military technology, they overcame the local forces with relative ease, and formed several small Boer republics in areas beyond British control, without a central government.

The Africans were definitely there first, and later rebelled against the Dutch and the British.

[sadolakced acid]

black people did not appear in south africa in great numbers before the dutch arrived there.

this is because of the tsetse fly, which transmitted african sleeping sickness, killing herding animals, and thus preventing the africans from going to south africa.

thus, when the dutch arrived in south africa, they weren't stealing the land.

the boer wars were after both the dutch and the blacks gained a foothold in south africa.

read your quote again, sammi:

"These forced migrations, known as the Difaqane, made the region very weak, and easy to colonize by the nearby European settlers."

the europeans were already there.

[*Weird addiction*]

black people did not appear in south africa in great numbers before the dutch arrived there.

I am right. Black people did not appear in S.A in great numbers before the dutch but they were already there (in small numbers)... that's the point. They own S.A. the dutch arrived later...

[ComradeRed]

Today, we had the special friday announcements on the TV. So theres this black girl that came from the heart of Africa. she is so whitewashed but we have this writing contest and the title is suppose to be *I Wonder Why* and she goes on the announcements and says "I wonder why im black. Why cant I just be white and fit in"

Some people want to be black; others want to be white. You shouldn't get offended at other people's personal preferences.

It pissed every black person in school and all the white people said it was only a joke. To me, it made me sooo mad. just because shes from the motherland and all and shes basically degrading the black population at school. now the blacks at school, there is about 20-30 blacks in a school of 1,200. Now I honestly think me and other black people have every right to be mad.

Then you obviously went to a very preppy school; but the thing is the advantages of these preppy schools is that they are supposed to teach you to be confident and secure in your own abilities. Someone who is confident and secure doesn't get offended because of other people's tastes.

What do you think? If you are black, would you be angry too? if not state why

No I wouldn't be angry--it's ludicrous to get mad over someone else's personal tastes. The fact that some black students would get mad over that girl's statement is a sure sign that those black students are not secure in being black and have a latent desire to be white. Isn't that what they say about straight people who constantly have to begrudge and be offended by gays? They obviously aren't secure in their heterosexuality.

Live and let live!

[ComradeRed]

I loathe assimilates. I hate it when people degrade their own heritage and use it as an excuse. I mean come on, seriously, get over it

What heritage? That girl played no more of a role in creating black culture than in creating white culture--either way she is assimilating.

i dont think shes just talking about schools. considering whites out number every race in america by alot, maybe thats what she means?

20-30 / 1200 is about 2%--which is equivalent to McCandless, Pennsylvania. The black population in the whole US is something like 12%. That leads me to believe that the author of this thread goes to an extremely preppy school and is focusing on these superficial signs of "black pride" when the real sociological problems that African-Americans face within the United States are far greater than a single girl expressing her desire to be white. All in all, the insecurity of suburban blacks, who, materially although perhaps not socially, are at the top of American society, is incredibly harmful to the African-Americans in the United States in general and its image in the media, which exerts a tremendous influence on public opinion.

^heh, i know several Asian girls going out with white guys

Yeah, I don't think it was right of her to do that maybe, but  agree with Sammi

There are more Asian females in the US than males; so of course a lot of Asian girls are going to go out with white guys...

On the contrary, the extra points are true. You get 5, Asians get 3, etc. etc. I'm not lying. It's not just in Indiana. It's a nationwide thing. Please, Indiana would probably be the last state to want to impose affirmative action laws....There's a big hubub right where I live about race issues, and I'm posting a topic on it tomorrow once I gather sufficient information for you all.

According to statistics from Berkeley before the end of affirmative action in California, being black was worth around 300 SAT points (and keep in mind, this is 300 SAT points out of 1600, not out of 2400)

Of course, if I were on the admissions committee of a college, I would admit a white person over an equally qualified black person--and the reason is that other colleges use affirmative action, so that black person probably got into comparable colleges, whereas the white person probably got rejected at those colleges and thus it is far more likely that the white person would place a higher relative value on getting into my college as he has fewer choices without affirmative action.

hmmm, can i ask a question? what is the percentage of minorities compared to whites at UCLA? i mean, you make it seem all so common that the colleges would be chock full of minorities and 3% whites. and,  must i mention again that the big picture is, the only reason that some schools do this is because  they have such a small amount of blacks or hispanics etc, and with that, they dont get their federal funds. they arent doing this without benefit 

It's wrong to look at the big picture. We have to remember that these decisions affect people--not just statistics and percentages. A college with integrity should value fairness and the good of individual students above looking good for the US News and World Report. Blacks have a far higher admissions rate to top colleges. Over 40% of black students who apply to Harvard, for example, get in compared to just 10% of white students. Clearly, affirmative action is in more than full swing. If you want to increase minority enrollment, outreach--geting more black people to apply--is the way to do it, NOT through affirmative action policies, which just create a substandard pool and lead to discrimination on campus.

[sadolakced acid]

I am right. Black people did not appear in S.A in great numbers before the dutch but they were already there (in small numbers)... that's the point. They own S.A. the dutch arrived later...

rather, these small numbers were niether colonists nor settlements. to say that the blacks lived in south africa before the dutch is a rather bit of a strech.

[innocentwinky]

Very interesting topic.
I am asian . I understand this topic even though I probably witness it in another way .Black people have always had that feeling of being the underdog and not entitle to the same things as other. Excuse me , I dont mean always . I know the world is changing . Everyone is becoming more enlighten and becoming respectful. But the problem still lingers. It's like you are ashame of being black, no one , i repeat no one should be ashamed of being black or any race. It's not a joke that someone would want to be white and not black . Your race has experience so much .. like every other race .. that girl should reconsider that black is being strong and speaking out..

*sigh*
Yes.. i guess i said enough.

[Latina Babii]

There are so many times I wished I was fully white (I'm half but I barely look it) but peop;e don't jump down anyones throat for saying that blacks took the white peoples land (I laugh at refering to it in that way)

Did you know that there are still people who believe that Africans came AFTER whites in Africa and even after all the proof. Dumbass.

Anyway, it works both ways for the college (and the same at my mom's work which means the goverments involed to duh!) I can get into college for less money while the college gets more money because a minority was added It works to both advantages.

Same with mi mama's work.

[ComradeRed]

Both advantages, except for the kid that should've gotten in but didn't to let you in. And the (mostly white) taxpayers, who are forced by the government to pay to perpetuate this unjust system. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[AnnahhbeL]

people should be proud of what their race is.
i'm asian and i'm mad proud :D

[ComradeRed]

Aryan Pride all the way! I wanna kill me some J00z! Rawr!

[*disco infiltrator*]

^ Minda, I love you.
We need to meet uppppp.