[dreilly1]

I thought this article was kind of interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...acy/index.html

He made his statement in a discussion about affirmative action in college admissions. He made the statement that all college admissions should be based on merit, and that racial preferences should not be used. Then, when asked about legacy admissions, he said they should not be used either.

Bush, of course, should know a lot about legacy admissions, since his father and grandfather went to Yale, and his grades may not have merited admission on his own. He's even quoted as saying "Well, in my case, I had to knock on a lot of doors to follow the old man's footsteps." Say what you will about Mr. Bush, but it does take a lot of chutzpah to call for ending legacy admissions when he himself appears to have taken full advantage of it.

However, I thought this quote was the real interesting part:

While Bush clearly stated his opposition to quotas, he also suggested that he was not opposed to affirmative action.

But he didn't explain what the distinction was.

"I support college affirmatively taking action to get more minorities in their school," Bush said as the audience laughed.

On first glance, it sounds like a dodge worthy of Bill Clinton. But maybe he's on to something here? Maybe colleges should do what they can to encourage minority applications and provide more financial aid so that you don't have to be part of that priveleged class to go to college, but let the admissions process stand on its own.

Personally, I find the rising cost of a college education to be more of a problem than who gets into what college. How many intelligent people are skipping out on college because they can't afford it, or getting into crushing debt to find no job at the other end, while other C-students get to slug through Yale because their families can afford whatever it takes to get them through?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Most of the greatest proponents of affirmative action constantly claim that it’s not about quotas. So all of a sudden proponents are admitting it IS based on quotas? (It was never supposed to be.) Why else would Bush have to explain any distinction?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Why else would Bush have to explain any distinction?

He was actually trying to blur the distinction. Quotas are illegal and have been illegal for decades. Bush came out against the UM policy by saying he was against quotas, when in fact they weren't quotas.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BRussell:
He was actually trying to blur the distinction. Quotas are illegal and have been illegal for decades. Bush came out against the UM policy by saying he was against quotas, when in fact they weren't quotas.

While Bush clearly stated his opposition to quotas, he also suggested that he was not opposed to affirmative action.

There's nothing 'blurred' in this unless you can't see straight to begin with. One would have to be a simpleton on the issue of AA as it relates to quotas if they can't grasp what he's talking about. I don't see where Bush has to backtrack and re-explain the whole debate for the 'slow' folks who haven't been able to keep up.

[BRussell]

He's blurring the distinction between AA and quotas by saying he's opposed to quotas when 1) quotas are already illegal and 2) the UM program that he opposed in the name of being against quotas did not use quotas in the first place. It's like coming out against abortion by saying you're against killing 5-year-olds.

[Millennium]

I support treating all people equally. This includes judging them by the same standards.

[phoenixboy70]

i support people having REAL equal opportunities, regardless of financial/class background.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BRussell:
He's blurring the distinction between AA and quotas by saying he's opposed to quotas when 1) quotas are already illegal and 2) the UM program that he opposed in the name of being against quotas did not use quotas in the first place. It's like coming out against abortion by saying you're against killing 5-year-olds.

No, it’s like saying you’re against late term abortion, but aren’t opposed to Planned Parenthood.

If one doesn’t know the distinction between those things, then one hasn’t been paying attention. Or I dunno, maybe you’d need Bush to ‘splain’ it to you?

Like it or not, the issue of quotas IS part of the affirmative action debate. (Unlike your 5year old/abortion non-argument). He clearly says he’s against quotas but not AA, which is exactly the line affirmative action proponents themselves stress constantly. Why all of a sudden does Bush need to provide anyone who doesn’t understand the issue with a distinction between the two?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I support treating all people equally. This includes judging them by the same standards.

Indeed. Otherwise it's just another form of racism.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I support treating all people equally. This includes judging them by the same standards.

I think in theory everyone supports this. But what about all the inequities built into the system before one even applies to college? In affluent towns, many college-bound kids receive expensive SAT coaching to increase scores, and pay large fees for private college advisors who help them tailor their college essays and improve their applications.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
No, it’s like saying you’re against late term abortion, but aren’t opposed to Planned Parenthood.

Except that late-term abortion still hasn't been clearly decided like quotas have. Several state laws have been passed but struck down by courts, and the federal law hasn't made its way through the courts yet. In light of that, I think it's legitimate to discuss your stance on late-term abortion. Quotas have been illegal since the 70s, and there is no indication whatsoever that they're going to become legal. Therefore saying you're against quotas means nothing for the debate over affirmative action. Not that I'd expect him to actually say something of substance. For example, here's how your boy answered another question at that meeting.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Quotas have been illegal since the 70s, and there is no indication whatsoever that they're going to become legal. Therefore saying you're against quotas means nothing for the debate over affirmative action.

You're missing the point. Legal or not, race-based quotas ARE part of the affirmative-action debate. People attempting to enact race-based quotas that they pretend aren't, ARE a part of the affirmative action debate.

BOTH sides stress they are against quotas as its suits their agendas.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Following Bush's remark on Friday, the Rev. Jesse Jackson told CNN it's a positive step "if it's a policy, not just a speech."

So Jesse Jackson is against legacy admissions for college. So how did Jesse's son get elected to Congress? Strictly by merit, I'm sure.

[shiny]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So Jesse Jackson is against legacy admissions for college. So how did Jesse's son get elected to Congress? Strictly by merit, I'm sure.

This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this board. You ask how Jesse's son got ELECTED to Congress. Yes, he was elected on his merit. The VOTERS ELECTED him. Please tell me how this is in any way related to Affirmative Action.

[tie]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
BOTH sides stress they are against quotas as its suits their agendas.

Both sides say whatever sounds good. E.g., two posts in this thread: "I support treating all people equally. This includes judging them by the same standards," and "i support people having REAL equal opportunities, regardless of financial/class background." Who could disagree? There's no content here, and I think any changes are going to happen at the state level, or at individual schools. The status quo balancing act isn't so bad at all.

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Bush, of course, should know a lot about legacy admissions, since his father and grandfather went to Yale, and his grades may not have merited admission on his own. He's even quoted as saying "Well, in my case, I had to knock on a lot of doors to follow the old man's footsteps." Say what you will about Mr. Bush, but it does take a lot of chutzpah to call for ending legacy admissions when he himself appears to have taken full advantage of it.

Why? Is it so unreasonable that he may have changed his mind in the decades since he graduated? Even if he hasn't really changed his mind, he's at least saying the right thing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by tie:
Both sides say whatever sounds good. E.g., two posts in this thread: "I support treating all people equally. This includes judging them by the same standards," and "i support people having REAL equal opportunities, regardless of financial/class background." Who could disagree?

Well since you brought it up,

The first statement I think is that of a realist. It requires the person making the statement taking responsibility in treating people equally and judging equally by the same standards. It makes no false promises. It offers up a fair shot, nothing more, and nothing less. It’s honest in that it makes no fake guarantees and isn’t pie in the sky nonsense that lets the speaker off the hook by making a feel good statement that the speaker doesn’t have to follow themselves.

The second statement: at first glance the sentiment sounds good on the surface, but on closer look offers the usual dose of ‘feel-good-fluff’ vagueness that sweeps mountains of crucial details under the rug. It’s an infomercial statement that makes promises that likely can’t be kept. The speaker can feel ‘warm and fuzzy’ like they care more than others for saying it, but all the actual details are left for others to be forced to solve, and/or blamed when the false promises aren’t met.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by shiny:
This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this board. You ask how Jesse's son got ELECTED to Congress. Yes, he was elected on his merit. The VOTERS ELECTED him. Please tell me how this is in any way related to Affirmative Action.

OK, how did he get on the ballot of his party? Do you really think his name had nothing to do with it?

It's amazing also how much electable talent runs in certain families. What a bunch of geniuses! Generations of Kennedy's, Bushes, Daleys, Jacksons, Fords, Gores, etc. etc. All coincidentally making it to high office on their own individual merits. Do you really believe that?

And do you really believe that just because the voters vote for a name on a ballot that the person they vote for is the most qualified person for the office? If that is so, then Bush and Kerry are the most qualified two Americans to be president. Do you really believe that?

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by tie:
Why? Is it so unreasonable that he may have changed his mind in the decades since he graduated? Even if he hasn't really changed his mind, he's at least saying the right thing.

I don't think it's unreasonable that he's changed his mind on this issue. People's opinions are entitled to change over time, just ask Mr. Kerry. I just thought that given Mr. Bush's history (which he has made no effort at all to conceal, in fact he wears his C average like a badge sometimes to counter the pseudo-intellectuals on the other side) it's interesting that he's taken the position he has.

In fact, I give him credit for going on the record against a policy that he directly benefitted from. It shows that he does take a broader view of certain issues, and if his examination of affirmative action made him believe that legacy admissions are flawed also, then that is a respectable position.

I don't think legacy admissions will ever go away, though, because it's easier to get donations out of a rich alumnus if their child is attending. And it's better to keep all the donations from a single rich family going to the same institution, at least if the priority of the college is raising funds and not in actually teaching...