Bush's Comments on racial quotas

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

JScrusader

Senior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2002
Messages
141
Reaction score
0
Anyone think this will have any implications for Med school admissions?

WASHINGTON (Jan. 15) - President Bush, stepping into a major affirmative action case, asserted Wednesday that a program of racial preferences for minority applicants at the University of Michigan was ''fundamentally flawed'' and unconstitutional.

The program ''amounts to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students solely on their race,'' Bush said in announcing that his administration would file a legal brief in the case with the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The administration's brief will narrowly apply to the Michigan program, officials said.

Bush's move drew strong criticism from civil rights groups, and Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle called it ''a watershed moment for the administration.'' Before the announcement he said, ''They have to decide whether they're for civil rights and diversity or not.''

''I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education,'' Bush said. But he added, ''The method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this goal is fundamentally flawed.''

He said that some students at the university are selected or rejected on the color of their skin. ''The motivation for this administration policy may be very good, but the result is discrimination. And that discrimination is very wrong,'' Bush said.

He spoke in the Roosevelt Room of the White House and declined to take questions.

Bush said that ''racial prejudice is a reality in our country'' but that, in trying to fix the problem, ''we must not use means that create another wrong.''

The president said Americans should not be satisfied with the current numbers of minorities on college campuses.

''Our government must work to make college more affordable for students who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and because we're committed to racial justice, we must make sure that America's public schools offer a quality education to every child from every background,'' Bush said.

The politically charged issue forced the president to balance the desires of his conservative backers, who staunchly oppose affirmative action, against the potential reaction from the broader electorate if he is viewed as being racially insensitive.

Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School who says he'll seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, plans to file a brief in support of the university's program.

''I believe affirmative action is an essential tool in expanding educational opportunities to minorities,'' he said.

Complicating the president's decision was the fallout from Sen. Trent Lott's remarks that seemed to hold nostalgia for the days when segregation was accepted in parts of the nation. Bush condemned the comments last month, and the Republican Party has been trying to attract more minority voters.

In a sign of the White House's discomfort with the issue, press secretary Ari Fleischer spoke of Bush's support of diversity while also discussing the president's plans to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, increase aid to Africa and funnel more money to black colleges.

The university's affirmative action question is one of the most-watched issues before the high court this year and could yield the court's most important statement on the use of racial preferences in a quarter-century.

Bush called quotas unconstitutional, but he did not say the use of race is always unconstitutional in selecting students. Instead he focused on the particulars of the Michigan programs, which assign additional points to minority undergraduate applicants and try to ensure that a certain percentage of law school students are minority.

The Michigan programs, like those of many public institutions nationwide, were designed to comply with the Supreme Court's last, somewhat murky pronouncement on the issue.

The court's decision in the 1978 Bakke case involving a white applicant rejected from a public medical school in California banned the outright use of racial quotas but still allowed university admissions officers to use race as a factor.

At Michigan, white students sued, claiming reverse discrimination.

In Texas, as governor, Bush opposed racial preferences in public universities and proposed instead that students graduating in the top 10 percent of all high schools be eligible for admission to state schools. Supporters say that had the effect of continuing a stream of minority students, because some public high schools are nearly all black or Hispanic.

States across the country are wrestling with ways to keep up minority enrollment in public colleges, and several are operating under court orders or negotiated agreements to end discrimination.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I am in no way supportive of affirmative action, of ANY kind... (and this from a democrat, no less)...

But there are many days, this being one of them, that I just wish stupid ole Bush would bloody shut up.
 
I wonder why Bush didn't comment on the points given to children of alumni in the same U of M point system. Oh that's right, he's benefitted from this his whole life so why should he think it's equally wrong.

I'm not a supporter of AA either in its current sense, but Bush needs to shutup.

I seriously doubt this will have an effect on med school admissions.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I think that this will have some effect on medical school admissions. If the supreme court rules against affirmative action, state schools may have to change their admissions criteria. Private schools, on the other hand, can still practice affirmative action.

Jetson
 
Originally posted by Jet915
Private schools, on the other hand, can still practice affirmative action.

Jetson

Not exactly true. Most, if not all, private medical schools do receive federal funding (through NIH grants, etc) and therefore would not be able to use affirmative action. So this has a huge effect on the future of the whole debate.
 
i agree wholeheartedly...Bush needs to shut his trap...while i am against affirmative action...i do believe it is a necessary evil of sorts...i agree that present systems and procedures are flawed...but the term "equality" does not truly exist in this country...we do not live in a color-blind society...and for anyone to suggest that prejudice and racial inequality do not exist simply shows that lack of perspective...in my perfect world i like to think people are treated with diginity and given opportunities solely based on the fact that they are human beings but alas this is not the case...so if it is down with affirmative action make sure you have a plan in place to create the equality and eliminate the discrimination that affirmative action has failed to create
 
It sounds like this case is not going to be decided for a long time, because no matter what the ruling, the other side will appeal it. So I don't think it will affect those of us applying for the 2003 entering class even if it was settled in time because they would have to completely change their admissions process and that would be unfair and then they would be sued. But it could affect the people who apply next year depending on the outcome.
 
Originally posted by Desdemona
It sounds like this case is not going to be decided for a long time, because no matter what the ruling, the other side will appeal it. So I don't think it will affect those of us applying for the 2003 entering class even if it was settled in time because they would have to completely change their admissions process and that would be unfair and then they would be sued. But it could affect the people who apply next year depending on the outcome.

umm, this particular case is going to the supreme court which will probably decide it in the next 6 months. There is no appeals left... who would you appeal to after the supreme court? The world court? they have no jurisdiction in the united states

so whatever the supreme court decides cant be appealed and could change the policies/practices of all schools until another case comes along.
 
Regardless of where anyone stands on affirmative action, I can almost assure you that ANY comments made by President Bush will not have an affect on the Supreme Court's ruling. I don't care who's president. Those Justices are independent thinkers who have proven over and over, through the years, that just because they were confirmed under a democrat or republican doesn't mean they're going to end up leaning that way on any issue. Granted...some do - on both sides. My point is...those men and women don't give a rip about what Bush thinks - believe me. They have ultimate job security.
 
Originally posted by Sarah Kerr
I am in no way supportive of affirmative action, of ANY kind... (and this from a democrat, no less)...

But there are many days, this being one of them, that I just wish stupid ole Bush would bloody shut up.

I was just wishing Clinton would ZIP IT UP. :D
 
I didn't know it was already at the supreme court. Even so, it probably won't affect our application cycle.
 
For all of you that don't agree with AA and wish President Bush would shut up, I have a question.

What do we have a president for if he doesn't stand up for what he and the majority of Americans believe to be right? If you don't agree with a certain policy (as many of you have stated you don't agree with AA) wouldn't you want the president to speak up about it if he is on your side of the argument?
 
Allthough I love Pres. Bush, I'm pretty much with the rest of you here that he might have been in a better position if he thought a bit before he spoke. I completely understand the position for AA and believe that something needs to be done to promote more diversity in higher education and professional schools. Specifically for medicine, it is proven that cultural identification with a doctor creates better communication and compliance. Also, it is important for people of every ethnicity (I will not use the term race because it's an artificially imposed idea) to have role models to look up to, and to have people who did the same thing before them to inspire confidence. That said, AA is not the answer. It originated to help solve the diversity problem, however, it should have only been a temporary solution to a deeper problem. During the years since it began, we should have been proactively looking to solve this problem at the source by providing more opportunities at an earlier age, and helping to reduce underlying barriers. It doesn't do anybody good to first, to assign a race to somebody to classify them, then to basically say they can be promoted only because of that identification - that's degrading! Somehow, we need to find a way to remove the oppressive factors that cause the original disparity (don't flame me for this - i know it's idealistic)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Originally posted by rbassdo
Regardless of where anyone stands on affirmative action, I can almost assure you that ANY comments made by President Bush will not have an affect on the Supreme Court's ruling. I don't care who's president. Those Justices are independent thinkers who have proven over and over, through the years, that just because they were confirmed under a democrat or republican doesn't mean they're going to end up leaning that way on any issue. Granted...some do - on both sides. My point is...those men and women don't give a rip about what Bush thinks - believe me. They have ultimate job security.

Actually, it is very common for the administration to submit briefs in support or against appeals that are heard before the Supreme Court. In this instance, the court specifically requested the government's position on the matter -- so it would seem that they do value his opinion.
 
Originally posted by abw
Allthough I love Pres. Bush, I'm pretty much with the rest of you here that he might have been in a better position if he thought a bit before he spoke.

Not to pick on this above post, b/c quite a few have said similar things....they don't like AA but they wish Bush would be quiet.

Why?

You think he said this stuff just off the cuff? Did you see the press conference? Not exactly a spontaneous thing. It was well thought out and articulated. I respect the guy for not being afraid to raise this to a level where we actually talk about it rather than grumbling about it. Some people wish he would shut up b/c they don't want to deal with the issue because it's too "sensitive", but no matter what your opinion is on his beliefs, you have to respect the fact that he is willing to confront some issues that others don't want to talk about and be honest about it. I'm sure he'll be attacked by the opposition, but then maybe people will actually talk about it, rather than say "I don't agree with AA, but I don't want to talk about it either"
 
I support Bush's move in attacking the affirmative action policy. If you dont like aa, then why would you want no one to change it? It doesnt make any sense. I feel that this is a big problem and am glad Bush is taking action in trying to change it.
 
Originally posted by Wrigleyville
Actually, it is very common for the administration to submit briefs in support or against appeals that are heard before the Supreme Court. In this instance, the court specifically requested the government's position on the matter -- so it would seem that they do value his opinion.

I still don't buy it. That court is extremely independent and enigmatic. They may have asked for the government's position, but that's probably protocol ("three branches separate but equal, etc). This court will do what they want. If anything was going to sway them...I would be the recent deal with Trent Lott - not the Presidents comments.
 
Didn't Bush get into Yale Law School with a 2.7 GPA. I didn't know that AA also helped the affluent people with silver spoons in their mouths. Hmmm, makes me wonder :rolleyes: .
 
Originally posted by rbassdo
I still don't buy it. That court is extremely independent and enigmatic. They may have asked for the government's position, but that's probably protocol ("three branches separate but equal, etc). This court will do what they want. If anything was going to sway them...I would be the recent deal with Trent Lott - not the Presidents comments.


And this is the court that put Bush into office along ideological lines after he lost the popular vote and "won" Florida under a cloud of charges of turning minorites away from the polls? This example of the court's "independence" is really convincing :mad:
 
i think this is the first time ive ever agreed with anything bush has ever said, and what do you know, he managed to do it without fumbling his words and making himself look like a *****. way to go george!

i think what some other posters are trying to say is that it is kind of hypocritical for bush to call affirmative action ''divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution'' when he got into Yale in part because of the credits he earned with his father being alumni, was handed a share of the oil business and was saved a spot flying jets that were on their way out of service here in the states during the Vietnam war while the "working class" people had to go off and serve whether they wanted to or not. i can kind of see where they are coming from in wanting old george to shut his trap.

anyway, its fine by me, like i said, i agree with the guy on this issue and think that affirmative action has to go.
 
I see that most of you feel that although the affirmative action system is flawed, Bush should just shut up about it. I agree, he should shut his face. I don't feel government officials should take a stand on important issues, state their opinions, or try to get things done. Rather they should just smile and look pretty and learn that little wave thing that English monarchs have mastered over the years.
 
Originally posted by CaNEM
I see that most of you feel that although the affirmative action system is flawed, Bush should just shut up about it. I agree, he should shut his face. I don't feel government officials should take a stand on important issues, state their opinions, or try to get things done. Rather they should just smile and look pretty and learn that little wave thing that English monarchs have mastered over the years.

I realize you were being sarcastic, but I really don't think that's a bad idea:).
 
Originally posted by azpremed
And this is the court that put Bush into office along ideological lines after he lost the popular vote and "won" Florida under a cloud of charges of turning minorites away from the polls? This example of the court's "independence" is really convincing :mad:

George Bush did not turn people away at the polls. There has never been any hard proof that this occurred. If you want to get real nit-picky, then...yes - the court's decision on the election did show independence since the majority of the people who voted did so for Gore. Talk about going against the flow.
 
i just wanted to clarify the reason i wanted bush to shut up....so yeah he made a stand for his position on AA....however in no means did he offer a solution and a plan of action his administration is willing to take...i am sorry but his words on "needing diversity" , "improving education" and so on and so on are empty...these are catch phrases that have been being used for decades now to no avail...so until he can present a course of action....i want him to shut his mouth...its like someone saying i think the present health care situation in America is horrible...well unless you have a plan to fix it...your opinion is worthless especially for a leader whom in this country has the power to actually change the system...we dont vote for leaders in this country to hear their opinion...no we vote for them because it is our belief that they are qualified to make decisions to bring about necessary change
 
Let's see war, unemployment rate, screwed economy, nuclear weapons, why don't I just bother the peons at UMich with a decision on their racial issues? Who cares if I openly spoke out against Lott (who supports AA across the board :rolleyes:) just a few weeks ago.

I truly hope we never has a Bush Jr. that runs for president. All I have to say as as the minority #'s grow in America. Bush can kiss another term g o o d b y e.
 
Originally posted by Raptor
Didn't Bush get into Yale Law School with a 2.7 GPA. I didn't know that AA also helped the affluent people with silver spoons in their mouths. Hmmm, makes me wonder :rolleyes: .

No Bush did not get into Yale law with a 2.7. Bush never went to law school.

gimme a break
 
the president took a strong, principled stand on a difficult issue that affects us all. contrary to the rantings of jesse jackson, al sharpton, tom daschle and their mignions, affirmative actions is unconstitutional, and more importantly unamerican. slavery, segregation, and racism remind us all of a very dark time in american history, and we need not revisit those times and reopen old wounds to promote a progressive agenda on the issue of racial integration. affirmative action perpetuates and quite frankly exacerbates that which it seeks to eliminate, and that is inequity of any sort, not just for blacks, hispanics and native americans. i think that we all agree that the greatest nation is about equal opportunity under law irrespective of race or creed or background, and no policy short of indiscriminate admissions policies would achieve that common goal.

on the issue of legacy admissions, while i would agree that it, too, is unamerican, i can understand the motivation of the institutions that engage in it. alumni are single largest sources of funding, and this funding, in turn, is what enables universities to hire new faculty, offer a broader based education, and to provide need based aid to the likes of the very students that we seek to include in the universities that we lambast. again, while it is indeed troublesome, at this point it is a necessary evil in an era of private fundraising and endowments.

the president ignored the pandering left, and looked past the stringent right, and took the middle, and i believe, higher ground on the issue. i would hope that it sets a precedent for us all.
 
UM's undergraduate admissions is as follows...

150 total points....110 has to do with academics, 40 has to do with 'others'.

Academics includes GPA (80 pts), quality of curriculum, quality of high school, standardized tests (12 pts).

'Others'...according to Sue Colman, new Pres, 20 points for being a URM, 20 points if you are socioeconomically 'disadvantaged', 4 points for being the son/daughter of an alumn.

So, for those of you complaining about legacies, it counts for 2.67% of your admission score. Being a URM, regardless of your socioeconomic status (my big gripe with AA) counts for 13.3% of your admission score, MUCH higher than the 9.something% a 1600 on SAT or 36 on the ACT will get you.
 
Complex,

He did offer a solution: make higher education affordable! For those of you of middle class or lower middle class families, higher education is harder to pay for than a house. The statistics speak for themselves. Why are minorities underrepresented in the upper professions (lawyers, doctors, business executives)? One major reason is that minorities are not going to school. A recent study showed that about 75% of white high school seniors are going on to college, while less than 35% of black/hispanic high school seniors are. Yes, institutional racism of universities is one contributing factor. However, I know from experience working with underpriveledged inner city teens that the cost is too much for the family to bear, so minority appilcants do not apply. Even with all the financial aid available it is still extremly difficult for a child of a family making less than 30,000/year to pay tuition.

The way that medical, law, business schools compensate for the disparity (instead of making tuition more affordable) is by lowering the admission standards for minority applicants. Thus, you have the cases of reverse discrimination or AA, whatever you want to call it.

The focus of graduate schools, government, and professions should not be to place a sheer number of minorities in these positions. Rather they should focus on putting QUALIFIED, exceptional professionals on the market--no matter what color.
 
And just to add to my point, this effects medical admissions greatly. Here's how:

Applicant 1 (white): 3.4 GPA, 30 MCAT, great LOR's, various shadowing and volunteer activities, good interview.

Applicant 2 (minority): 3.1 GPA, 28 MCAT, great LOR's, various shadowing and volunteer activities, good interview

In order for Medical School X to keep federal funding, 10% (I made this number up) of the matriculating students must be minorities, and currently the school is sitting at 8% when these apps are reviewed--Who do you think will get accepted? Applicant 2 will almost every time. Is that fair?
 
I am a conservative republican (as my username implies) and I am also an underrepresented minority (URM). I believe that affirmative action has provided opportunities for minority students who have the mental capability of being a good student, but have not scored well on standardized tests. I think it has been unfair as well to those disadvantaged students who do not meet the criteria of being a URM (African-American, Mexican-American, Mainland Puerto Rican, and Native-American). Obviously, not all URMs are disadvantaged, many of the URMs who get accepted to medical school have parents who are professionals and their parents encourage their children to pursue a higher education. On the other hand you may have a white student who comes from a severely disadvantaged background and because he is white, will not get looked at if he as a lower GPA and MCAT. This is unfair.

I believe affirmative action will soon be eliminated nationwide, as it has been in Texas, California, Washington State (my state) and a few others. I just hope that students who work hard, study hard, volunteer, shadow, conduct research, and have a burning desire to become a physician are able to make it despite the fact that they come from the ghetto, were in foster care, were migrant farmworkers, or were raised with poverty and had drugs and abuse in their home. These students, may not have as high of a GPA or MCAT as they would have had if they were raised in a decent, stable, and loving household, but, they may pass the USMLE I and II and get board certified and be excellent physicians.
 
cjdoc...sorry if i got it wrong wasnt intention...what bush proposed was an idea not a solution...we all know that higher education needs to be made more affordable...but HOW will this be done...further more how about before starting with higher education, you start with the present state of America's public schools...it is proven and documented that the inner city schools and the kids that attend them are less prepared to enter college or the workforce...how does bush suppose to address this problem...and quite frankly i am getting tired and also offended with the classic minority stats...i myself am an URM...and by no means are my stats subpar...they are just as competitive as my non-URM counterparts...i did not apply with disadvantaged status...what i have i have worked for...it was not given to me...so please do not be so quick to lump most URMs into a lump category...because those URMs that are applying or are in some professional school have worked just as hard as anyone else to get there...people say that AA is wrong because it stereotypes and is discriminatory...yet people use the same type of arguments to justify its abolishment...i do not want anything from anyone because they feel my ethnicity or race has put me at a disadvantage...and i think alot of URM feel the same way...however you look at it...there is a gap between opportunity and other programs and the population they are supposed to target...solve that and there is no need for affirmative action
 
Originally posted by shamthis
No Bush did not get into Yale law with a 2.7. Bush never went to law school.

gimme a break

Bush went to Havard Business School and did his undergraduate work at Yale. He also went to an elite high school academy (Phillips) in MA, I believe. Bush has stated that his GPA at Yale can be described as "gentleman's C."

I think that the biggest problem with Bush is that he has lived a life of privilege and has little credibility on this issue. He says that people should go places on their own merits, yet he run for governor and president on his father's name, went to college with substandard stats on his grandfather's legacy, and used the family money to attend an elite high school. It is hard for me to take him seriously on this issue.
 
I was not implying that every URM has subpar scores, contrarily they usually have above average scores. However, there is that small percentage who do have sub-par scores--and that's what I was discussing. The people who, if they were white would not even be interviewed, but based on pressure from the governement and special interests get accepted.

One solution that Bush has been harping about for years is school vouchers--but because dems like to just throw money into the public educational system--even though it is failing, rather than giving the parents options onto where to send their children, nothing has been done.
 
Why do people have such animosity to those with money. The Bush's worked hard for their money and decided to send their children to one of the best prep schools on the East Coast. And whether anyone wants to admit it or not, a 2.7 from a highly regarded private HS is worth more than a 4.0 from PS 119 in Philadelphia.

How did Bush win on his father's name? I remember Bush Sr being a one term pres who lost in historical fashion. Bush won on the strength of his policies, voting record, and management abilities. BTW, if one is going to discredit Bush based on family money and power, why then does noone shout that Al Gore, son of a 6 term Ten. Senator and very successfull businessman (on par with the Bush's), and man who NEVER held a private sector job until he taught at Columbia following his election defeat, is in the same catergory?

Lastly, to the poster who knocked Bush's National Guard Service during Vietnam. At least he put on a uniform and flew aircraft during the war, didn't Clinton dodge the draft by escaping overseas? (oh yeah, that doesn't matter)
 
The idea that the top 10% of students from schools regardless of race should be guaranteed admission is preposterous. That is going on the assumption that education was valued and reinforced in the home. Affirmative Action is a retroactive safety net implemented to correct the wrongs of the pasts by affording an immediate and graceful retribution to minorities.

I agree Bush's comments posed an idea not a solution.
 
Originally posted by CJ2Doc
1. Why do people have such animosity to those with money.


2. How did Bush win on his father's name?. . . BTW, if one is going to discredit Bush based on family money and power, why then does noone shout that Al Gore, son of a 6 term Ten. Senator . . .

3. Lastly, to the poster who knocked Bush's National Guard Service during Vietnam. At least he put on a uniform and flew aircraft during the war, didn't Clinton dodge the draft by escaping overseas? (oh yeah, that doesn't matter)

To respond a little

1. This has nothing to do with Bush directly. "The American Way" is to make your lot in life by hard work. You can do anything you want and be anyone you want as long as you work hard and perservere. People have animosity toward others who were given their money by their parents. It is not exclusive to politicians. Everyone wants everyone else to think that they MADE their way.

2. Seriously, do you not think that Bush had a serious advantage because of the name of his father? Sure his father was a one termer, but he lost the election with honor and pride. Few Americans, dem or rep, have anything particularly bad to say about Bush Sr.

Regarding Gore, I agree with you. He was very similar to Bush in this regard. He is not president, though.

3. Bush was handed an ANG job because of his grandfather the senator, in spite of low grades and academic mediocrity. There were several hundered applicants for the 1 flight job, and because of political influence, he got it. He spent his service time, burning holes over Texas in a plane.

Clinton was not drafted. It is that simple. He could have been, but wasn't. My father, son of an Iowa farmer, was also not drafted. He filled out his selective service paperwork, but wasn't asked to serve. I don't see how the Bushies can feel that they are superior because of this.
 
where's my safety net!
 
No one is handed a job in the ANG. Minimum requirements to enlist as an officer: 90 credits from a university or college, 110 GT score on ASVAB, pass a PT test. That's it. Yes, jobs are slotted--however no matter what "job" he would have gotten, Bush's battalion or squadron (whatever the Air Guard calls it) didn't get mobilized. That's not his fault. BTW, the best way to avoid the draft and stay home is to join the NG (he's smarter than you think).
 
Originally posted by CJ2Doc
No one is handed a job in the ANG. Minimum requirements to enlist as an officer: 90 credits from a university or college, 110 GT score on ASVAB, pass a PT test. That's it. Yes, jobs are slotted--however no matter what "job" he would have gotten, Bush's battalion or squadron (whatever the Air Guard calls it) didn't get mobilized. That's not his fault. BTW, the best way to avoid the draft and stay home is to join the NG (he's smarter than you think).

W Bush is a coward not smart.
 
Originally posted by CJ2Doc
No one is handed a job in the ANG. Minimum requirements to enlist as an officer: 90 credits from a university or college, 110 GT score on ASVAB, pass a PT test. That's it. Yes, jobs are slotted--however no matter what "job" he would have gotten, Bush's battalion or squadron (whatever the Air Guard calls it) didn't get mobilized. That's not his fault. BTW, the best way to avoid the draft and stay home is to join the NG (he's smarter than you think).

Those requirements are the minimum requirements and I am sure that he met them. However, being a pilot in the ANG is very competitive and you are competing against the cream of the crop, especially in the ANG during wartime.

As far as I know, virtually no National Guard units were federalized during the early 1970s. An appointment as an officer at that time meant that Bush would not have to leave Texas.

Naturally it is different in 2003. National Guard units are frequently federalized for short missions, such as patrolling the no-fly zone in Iraq. They serve our country very well.

Regarding the best way to avoid the draft statement. . . that is my point. Bush essentially avoided the draft and avoided serving his country, yet he claims credit for doing so. Many of our leaders haven't served, and I have no problem with that. But they don't deserve credit for serving when they essentially evaded the draft due to parental political influence.

Gore is no different, by the way.
 
After reading this entire thread, I get the sense that many people strongly dislike Pres. Bush, and it doesn't matter what he says or does about AA, they still won't like him.

I guess that's understandable though, I have the same type of bias against Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson.
 
The rest of my post got cut off. Just wanted to say that it seems like everyone has a bias.
 
I think what annoys people about Bush on this issue is not the fact that he is speaking out about it, but how hypocritical he seems when he opens his mouth. For the poster who thinks a 2.7 at an elite boarding school- Andover, Exeter, Groton, Milton, will get you into Yale, you are mistaken. A 2.7 and a decent score might get you into the low end of the USNEWS Top 50 school, unless you have connections- which can open the door to the HYP. Bush had a C average at Andover, a C average at Yale a 1200 SAT, which if you really think about it, just doesn't add up. True, many presidents have done as poorly as Bush, but few have stood up and said "no one group should have additional advantagess in the education arena." And actually, on the UMich scale, I think you get 20 points for "chancellor consideration"- for people who donate a lot of money.
 
Originally posted by elin
I think what annoys people about Bush on this issue is not the fact that he is speaking out about it, but how hypocritical he seems when he opens his mouth. For the poster who thinks a 2.7 at an elite boarding school- Andover, Exeter, Groton, Milton, will get you into Yale, you are mistaken. A 2.7 and a decent score might get you into the low end of the USNEWS Top 50 school, unless you have connections- which can open the door to the HYP. Bush had a C average at Andover, a C average at Yale a 1200 SAT, which if you really think about it, just doesn't add up. True, many presidents have done as poorly as Bush, but few have stood up and said "no one group should have additional advantagess in the education arena." And actually, on the UMich scale, I think you get 20 points for "chancellor consideration"- for people who donate a lot of money.

I think you're showing my point. The President of the United States can't talk about AA because he got into Yale by influence 30 years ago? I just can't buy that one. Besides, there is plenty of precendent for Presidents to tinker with executive policy, when it can easily be argued that their private lives gave them little ground to do so.

If anything, Pres. Bush's comments can again put the AA debate on the front page. If a person is truely pro- or anti-AA, what better opportunity to state your moral case?

I understand that Pres. Bush's comments might annoy some people (which is certainly their perrogative), but I suspect that these people are more annoyed by Bush generally than just by his AA comments (which, again, is their perrogative).
 
ALERT: Another URM, affirmative action, college entrance criteria conversation has been elicited.

Please increase the SDN network bandwith and server disk quotas. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by JBJ

"The American Way" is to make your lot in life by hard work. You can do anything you want and be anyone you want as long as you work hard and perservere.

Sure if your name is Brett and not LaKeesha.

Here's a poll I just saw online:

Should race play a factor in college admissions?
Yes, it levels the field for minorities. 23%
No, it's unfair to white people. 77

Yup, I got news for you people. This is no NEW ISSUE. America is and will always take care of white, mid and upper-class Americans first.
 
I am a soldier in the ANG, have been so for over 6 years. I train, stay fit (somewhat), mold my schedule around drill schedules and annual trainings, volunteer for state active duty (blizzard, flood, airport security), and am currently on a warning order that could send me to Kosovo and end my medical career aspirations. Is that not serving my country? No matter what branch it is, when a person signs that enlistment paper he is stating that he will lay down his life in defense of this country. How dare someone who has never worn a uniform dare question the integrity of another man's service. Un freakin beleivable!
 
Originally posted by LoveDoc
Sure if your name is Brett and not LaKeesha.

Here's a poll I just saw online:

Should race play a factor in college admissions?
Yes, it levels the field for minorities. 23%
No, it's unfair to white people. 77

Yup, I got news for you people. This is no NEW ISSUE. America is and will always take care of white, mid and upper-class Americans first.

Why don't you tell me how American isn't helping you out right now LoveDoc?

You can have a lower GPA and a lower MCAT and still have a better chance at getting acceptance to med school.

You have an abundance of scholarships out there that are specifically for minorities. How much money is out there for specifically white males?

If you want to do research, there is so much money out there labeled for minorities only it's ridiculous. How many grants out there are for white males only.

I don't agree with AA in its current state, but I think diversity is very much needed in medicine. But how in the world can you make a post saying what is out there is still not enough. What more can be given to you?
 
This may not be a popular statement but here goes. It is foundationally unfair to give ad advantage to one person over another based purely on ethnicity. When it does happen, its called discrimination. Just because whites hold the majority in this country DOES NOT mean that we cannot be discriminated against. What the U of Michigan did by awarding points to applicants based on race is WRONG. Plain and simple. Yes, veterans get 10 extra points, but they earned it through service to their nation. Yes, university benefactors children get 20 points but they earned it through opening up their checkbook. A person given 20 points based soley because they were born with a darker complected skin than the majority of this nation's population DID NOT EARN THOSE POINTS. YOU CANNOT EARN ANYTHING FROM BEING BORN!
 
Top