- Joined
- Mar 22, 2002
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 0
you said it.
LETS GET READY TO RUUUUUUMMMMMMBBBBBBBLLLLLLEEEEEE!!!!!!Originally posted by DarkChild
WOOOHOOO!!!! the first real flame fest of 2003.
A good AA bashfest replete with below the belt pot shots!!!
FLAME ON!!!
DarkChild WuZ HerE
Originally posted by SistaKaren
Edit: Garibaldo...you never even addressed my arguments in the last post...so to say that pro-AA people are getting desperate seems a bit of a stretch, considering you haven't even addressed all of our points....
Originally posted by Garibaldo
SistaKaren, what points did I not address? Perhaps you didn't read my response carefully enough or perhaps you're unwilling to.
Originally posted by Tuesday Weld
Is this true?!
Then Path - by all means, feel free to mention that.
What did you get?
Or are you afraid to admit it? 😛
Originally posted by Garibaldo
How ironic that a person who is telling us to ignore such threads hoped into the current thread on AA and made an arguement for AA and attacked me. Wouldn't a person against these types of threads stay out of AA threads instead of pushing them further? Shouldn't someone who complains about how AA threads just turn into flame wars NOT say things like
"you're going to have some issues in the verbal section of the MCAT" when they argue with you?
Originally posted by Gleevec
Also, "By quoting the 42 MCAT I'm saying that despite being a URM with current MCAT scores good enough to get me admitted to medical school, I've set the bar higher due TO MY OWN PERSONAL STANDARDS!!!" is an extremely arrogant thing to say. But it also doesnt address the fact of whether your scores are "good enough" because you are a URM, or "good enough" regardless of race. If it is the latter, your entire "I want a 42" post is even more arrogant than I initially thought. Even if it is the former, no need to go around parading your fantasy score when you have an actual one (and when in fact the best option, in this particular topic, is not to mention a personal score at all)
Originally posted by MacGyver
Remember this, you may get accepted to med school, but your race will have a substantial amount to do with that. Not 1%, more like a 20-30% boost.
Originally posted by LoveDoc
Why is it when bluedeviled creates a thread stating that she was offered a full merit ride to Vandy she got HIGH 5's but when Pathdr2b states she's working on her 42T she's an arrogant minority????
Originally posted by pathdr2b
For the same reason why when I wear my Carolina alumnae sweatshirt someone ALWAYS asks if I went to school there🙄 🙄 🙄
It appears that minorities on SDN fall into one of 3 categories:
1) Arrogant - If that's how you see it , so be it baby!
2) Unqualified for admission based on stats
3) Arrogant and unqualified for admission based on stats
I imagine this is the reason not many URM's post on SDN. If I had the time, I'd start a premed web site for URM's but wait....... some of the SDN folks would probably just visit the site and flame us to death for being admitted😡
Originally posted by DAL
Whenever I wear my NC State sweatshirt everyone asks me the same question. I'm not a minority, so what? Maybe people just like to ask stupid irrelevant questions.
Originally posted by pathdr2b
With all due respect, there is a big difference between an alumni shirt and some ol' shirt. Besides, it does have NC State on it so I think what people are REALLY trying to say when you wear it is is "why in the hell do you have THAT shirt on when you should have on a Carolina shirt"? But wait, you probably couln't get in since your not a minority with low stats![]()
![]()
And while you may have seen bludevils comment as arrogant, you certainily didn't flame her for it! And by the way I don't think posts like that are arrogant at all. I think a lot of you need some confidence and a 42T on the MCAT!![]()
![]()
PS to Lovedoc - don't worry, cause I got your back!
Originally posted by DAL
And no I didn't even apply to Carolina as they don't have a Chemical Engineering curriculum.
Originally posted by DAL
With all the talk in these threads centered around racism I've noticed that some people can only see things in black and white. While society may have forced them to only see the world through racist sunglasses, it greatly narrows your perception of people
Originally posted by DAL
And LoveDoc, I don't recall anyone saying Path was an arrogant "minority". I just remember them calling her arrogant.
Originally posted by DAL
With all the talk in these threads centered around racism I've noticed that some people can only see things in black and white. While society may have forced them to only see the world through racist sunglasses, it greatly narrows your perception of people.
"It's us against the world" theory, which is very unfortunate in my mind.
Originally posted by afabela
Well before every one starts dising AA let me ask you this their is a card game going on against Ms. White, Ms. Brown, Ms. Black and Ms. Yellow, and at the begining of the game Ms. White starts to cheat and thus is winning, Ms. Brown, Ms. Yellow and Ms. Black all find out later on in the game so they all start to cheat as well. Ms. White finds out they are cheating to so she says ok no more cheating lets all just play fair now. Is that fair even though Ms. White has more winnings then the others because of her past cheating. Think about it
Originally posted by LoveDoc
DAL, may i dare ask your age? I promise you the world will shape and re-shape itself 100 times for us all between now and midlife.
At the ripe young age of 23 (6-7 years ago) I was in the first year of the work force in corporate america. After some transitions and problems adjusting to my new job I encountered a situation that required management intervention. I was presented with a 15+ document from my then manager detailing the problems he saw in my work performance. I read the document made my replies and went on with my duties. Months later, I intercepted a message from him to HR stating that he wanted to make sure his actions with me were appropriate since I was a minority and he had several examples of how he dealt with people such as me fairly.
I was hurt, disappointed, angered, and belittled. Why had a personnel problem that had NOTHING to do with race now involved the color of my skin?
This is not an isolated issue. The problem is I thought this man had the utmost respect for me and based his interactions on me as a person not me as a minority. Since I cannot X-ray individual psyche I choose to enter each relationship with all people with a hint of skepticism and stay conscience of my experiences and base my decisions upon them.
Thanks for having my back Path....😉
Originally posted by afabela
Well before every one starts dising AA let me ask you this their is a card game going on against Ms. White, Ms. Brown, Ms. Black and Ms. Yellow, and at the begining of the game Ms. White starts to cheat and thus is winning, Ms. Brown, Ms. Yellow and Ms. Black all find out later on in the game so they all start to cheat as well. Ms. White finds out they are cheating to so she says ok no more cheating lets all just play fair now. Is that fair even though Ms. White has more winnings then the others because of her past cheating. Think about it
Originally posted by pathdr2b
First, I don't have a position on AA nor have I EVER stated one on SDN which is why I say ignore it! Second, I believe that if AA went away tomorrow, many URM's could still matriculate into medical school because schools like Harvard and Penn will ALWAYS make strong efforts to recruit and graduate minority students.
SO, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!!!!!!!😡
Originally posted by Garibaldo
Dude, when it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....you know.
Originally posted by pathdr2b
Yeah, I know................. it must be your.................Let me give you a clue:. The Halle Berry line from the latest James Bond movie![]()
![]()
![]()
Originally posted by afabela
Well before every one starts dising AA let me ask you this their is a card game going on against Ms. White, Ms. Brown, Ms. Black and Ms. Yellow, and at the begining of the game Ms. White starts to cheat and thus is winning, Ms. Brown, Ms. Yellow and Ms. Black all find out later on in the game so they all start to cheat as well. Ms. White finds out they are cheating to so she says ok no more cheating lets all just play fair now. Is that fair even though Ms. White has more winnings then the others because of her past cheating. Think about it
Originally posted by LoveDoc
I intercepted a message from him to HR stating that he wanted to make sure his actions with me were appropriate since I was a minority and he had several examples of how he dealt with people such as me fairly.
I was hurt, disappointed, angered, and belittled. Why had a personnel problem that had NOTHING to do with race now involved the color of my skin?
This is not an isolated issue. The problem is I thought this man had the utmost respect for me and based his interactions on me as a person not me as a minority.
LoveDoc,
I'm sorry you had to experience that. Your boss likely does have the utmost respect for you as a person (I said likely as I do not know the depths of the situation). This situation is a product of the reality of the world we live in. The union of the "us versus them" mentality (which is self perpetuating) and an extremely litigious (sp?) society has created the "defensive medicine" policies of the business world. You deserved to be treated like a person in this matter, but you were delt with as a special case for fear of what might happen should things become "unpleasant". The following example is to illustrate why such "defensive" policies are utilized, not to say that you in any way acted in such a manner.
I was working as a Personal Trainer at a private resort. There were many people who worked there, and a good representation of all ethnic backgrounds. A black man, Joe, was a locker room attendant. This resort, as any private establishment with wealthy clientel (sp?), had BANK. Joe knew this, and he was determined to get fired so that he could sue for racial descrimination. Joe was the one who was rascist. He constantly uttered racial slurs about whites, and chided other black people who worked at the resort for befriending whites. In his efforts to get fired Joe: 1) Came to work late and left early, 2) Slept in a back room during work hours, 3)STOLE member's and guest's belongings from their lockers (got caught on several occasions), 4) Cursed his boss and other employees for asking him to do tasks that are part of his job, etc. In the ~ 1yr that I was there Joe was not fired or punished in any way. WHY? Because the resort was so afraid of a racial descrimination lawsuit, the resort decided to tolerate his behavior (and compensate people for the materials and $ he stole). Obviously, if the resort had been taken to court, it would have had ample justification for firing the man. But, it was the potential bad PR that the resort faced if taken to court, as well as financial loss if the resort had lost, that caused it to take the course of action that it did.
THIS is the world we live in, and will be as long we continue to label other people and ourselves as a color. LoveDoc, again I am sorry you had to experience that, it is a shame. It also a shame that your boss was forced to treat you in that way because of the state of the world today.🙁
Ermonty
Originally posted by Jet915
Yeah! Ms. Yellow doesnt get to cheat. It seems Ms. Yellow has higher gpa's and mcat's than Ms. White/Brown/Black..........that's not fair! It all comes down to parenting.......Ms. Yellow's parents IN GENERAL seem to stress education ALOT so its not a surprise that Ms. Yellow receives higher gpa's/mcats IN GENERAL. Ok, enough of this game......
Jetson
Originally posted by Jet915
Ms. Yellow receives higher gpa's/mcats IN GENERAL. Ok, enough of this game......
Jetson
Originally posted by Dr. Lawyer
"Well before every one starts dising AA let me ask you this their is a card game going on against Ms. White, Ms. Brown, Ms. Black and Ms. Yellow, and at the begining of the game Ms. White starts to cheat and thus is winning, Ms. Brown, Ms. Yellow and Ms. Black all find out later on in the game so they all start to cheat as well. Ms. White finds out they are cheating to so she says ok no more cheating lets all just play fair now. Is that fair even though Ms. White has more winnings then the others because of her past cheating. Think about it"
This is idiotic. Take it out of my sight at once.
Originally posted by care bear
no one ever responds to my posts.
no, the people playing are not the same. however, the *institution* playing (the american government) is. and it recognizes the need to make retributions for injustices that it as an entity perpetrated until well into our parents' lifetimes. that fact, and not these psuedo-moral philosophies, are the basis of the relevance of affirmative action.
Originally posted by afabela
Well before every one starts dising AA let me ask you this their is a card game going on against Ms. White, Ms. Brown, Ms. Black and Ms. Yellow, and at the begining of the game Ms. White starts to cheat and thus is winning, Ms. Brown, Ms. Yellow and Ms. Black all find out later on in the game so they all start to cheat as well. Ms. White finds out they are cheating to so she says ok no more cheating lets all just play fair now. Is that fair even though Ms. White has more winnings then the others because of her past cheating. Think about it
Originally posted by Caffeinated
Now, PathDr, are we the "ORM's" supposed to just suck it up and ignore AA? If something is morally unjust, don't we have a moral obligation in a free society to speak up? Is not the price of freedom eternal vigilance? You may complain that as a URM you have to be twice as good to get half the respect in your profession; one could argue that an "ORM" you have to be twice as good to even get INTO the profession.
One parting thought, which I will borrow and remodel from the 70's peace movement: Using affirmative action to end discrimination is like having sex to promote virginity.
Originally posted by pathdr2b
When did Ms.Brown, Ms. Yellow, and Ms.Black get ALLOWED into the game in the first place?😕 😕
Originally posted by Gumshoe
the minorities along with liberal aid have created for themselves a no win situation:
Examine, if you will, the following scenario:
In response to past injustices, programs are continually employed and perpetuated to fix "wrongs"
Dr. X (minority) grows up does well as a student. If he does well for himself, he has a few troubles in certain circumstances because everyone thinks that he got to his current status because of things like AA, preferential programs, etc. This bothers him and his concious more than it should because he's been a product of a society that has said that he is a victim and that people oppress his race/color/creed, etc.
OR
Dr. X grows up, does well in school, but doesn't get selected to become a doctor like he wanted to be because after 3 years of trying he figures that the odds are stacked against him and he won't be able to compete with others of more affluent upbringing, etc. He rides the victim bandwagon to its grave and never really does what he wants to do.
So, either you do well and you are looked at as inferior, or you do well and don't make it and are looked at as lesser and end up doing something else, or ...
Let's just do well and forget about the rest. Who knows? What do you guys think? Just offering up an idea. maybe this isn't a good example?
Gummy
Originally posted by care bear
no one ever responds to my posts.
no, the people playing are not the same. however, the *institution* playing (the american government) is. and it recognizes the need to make retributions for injustices that it as an entity perpetrated until well into our parents' lifetimes. that fact, and not these psuedo-moral philosophies, are the basis of the relevance of affirmative action.
Originally posted by care bear
no, the people playing are not the same. however, the *institution* playing (the american government) is. and it recognizes the need to make retributions for injustices that it as an entity perpetrated until well into our parents' lifetimes. that fact, and not these psuedo-moral philosophies, are the basis of the relevance of affirmative action.
Originally posted by Jet915
People can raise their children anyway they want. I'm just pointing out that the way you raise your child will often reflect how your child will turn out.
Jetson
Originally posted by LoveDoc
Why is it when bluedeviled creates a thread stating that she was offered a full merit ride to Vandy she got HIGH 5's but when Pathdr2b states she's working on her 42T she's an arrogant minority????
Originally posted by care bear
if we accept that the government has a right to try to make retribution for some of the wrongs that it perpetrated, and that this is essentially one of the fundamental bases of AA, then we must accept the fact that in order to give preference to some, others may temporarily feel as if they have been the targets of discrimination. however, this isn't true. they are simply not the recipients of preferential retributive action.
We don't accept that the government has that right and that's why we have these debates. You can't assume that as a premise. The second part seems more like a cheap semantic misdirection than a logical arguement. It's like saying:
"In order for a greasy used car salesman to make a larger commission, he must jack up the price of the car. Some may feel that he is unfairly ripping off the consumer for excessive profit. However, this isn't true. He is simple moving green pieces of paper from your pocket to his."
we have to be willing to think of people for certain purposes as members of the groups that they do belong to. it's nice, but invalid politically, to say that since the people hurt by aa today are only the children of those who benefited from jim crow or slavery, they should be immune from any negative consequences or any responsibility to acknowledge that their position in life is statistically likely to have benefited from the cruelty of their ancestors.
i have to say, the card game analogy was maybe a little simplistic, but it's pretty darn accurate.
We don't have to be willing to categorize people for any purpose because that leads to the sort of mentality that creates racist stereotypes in the first place. If we categorize all blacks as disadvantaged and oppressed, then we create that impression of the whole group when it may not be true for all blacks. It is this line of thought that leads to policies that give sweeping preference to all blacks despite their circumstances. And, as we can see, it has lead to a racial stereotype where whites may immediately assume that blacks at universities got to where they are only through AA.
How do you account for the fact that Asian students, Middle-Eastern students (like myself) and other immigrants do not come from this country, yet we may easily be passed up for a spot when the preference is given to a minority? How about the fact that only a small minority of whites owned slaves during the time of slavery, so a large portion of the current population doesn't descend from white slave owners? They may, in fact, descend from someone who died to end slavery in the Civil War.
americans like to believe that each person can determine their own destiny and that the playing field should level with the birth of each new child~ however, that's just not the world we live in. our lives, and our successes, are often governed by a complex
fabric of determinants far beyond our control.
The current system of AA already accounts for socioeconomic disadvantage. It also harms other minority groups such as Asians who were\are also discriminated against. How about the history of genocide and war that plagued the countries of many immigrants? What about their past and their children's past? Should they get preferential treatment too because they have a history of poverty and dispair?
lastly, i coined the term 'psuedo-moral' to reflect the attitude behind a large number of these posts. a morality that out of the context of history, holds up to the closest scrunity, but is in reality built on erroneous premises (such as; righting a historical injustice toward an oppressed group is less important than making sure that no members of other groups recieve any possible hindrances as a result).
You've only replaced one moral premise with your own moral premise. It's not some bit of collective wisdom that historical injustice is more important than unfairness to certain race groups. That's just your opinion. Also, you've phrased the premise in such a way that it seems as if there is only one arguement made against AA. There are over a dozen different arguements for ending AA. For example, you could have changed the premise to:
"righting a historical injustice toward an oppressed group is less important than making sure that those who struggle their entire lives to do their best should always get the best"
or
"righting a historical injustice toward an oppressed group is less important than righting historical justice in a way that reflects the oppression of each individual aside from classifications of race, gender, etc."
lastly, i'd just like to say that medical school admissions is nowhere said to be governed by mcat and gpa alone, with everything else as a 'lesser' or 'unfair' factor. in fact, most med schools are very forthright in saying that the top three things they are looking for in a class is scholastic achievement, diversity, and experience/personal qualities. we as applicants are in no position to say 'no, that's wrong. you are not allowed to value diversity more than my 35 mcat. ' we just can't say that. because they have the schools. so they can decide what's important to them. do you see the fragility of such an argument?
It's foolish to think that since medical schools currently hold a policy and some degree of power over us, that we shouldn't be able to question or attempt to change that policy. This is what you suggest when you say "we as applicants are in no position to say 'no, that's wrong. you are not allowed to value diversity more than my 35 mcat. ' we just can't say that. because they have the schools. so they can decide what's important to them."
We are NOT at the mercy of the system and the past. Laws and institutions have always been a mold capable of being manipulated by the changing values of society over time. Affirmative action policies are no different. We can and SHOULD question their legitimacy. Diversity should be scratched as a category because the "experience/personal qualities" category can be broadened to include factors that will inherently provide racial diversity.
Affirmative action as it is practiced today does little to promote racial equality. The majority of admissions in AA programs are middle-income minorities, precisely those who don't need the program in the first place. AA is a rather cheap way for the nation to escape its moral obligation to address the underlying problems that exist in this country. It's like allowing the wounds of injustice to be inflicted on minorities and then covering it up with a bandage we call affirmative action. Wonderful, isn't it?
Originally posted by care bear
if we accept that the government has a right to try to make retribution for some of the wrongs that it perpetrated, and that this is essentially one of the fundamental bases of AA, then we must accept the fact that in order to give preference to some, others may temporarily feel as if they have been the targets of discrimination. however, this isn't true. they are simply not the recipients of preferential retributive action.
we as applicants are in no position to say 'no, that's wrong. you are not allowed to value diversity more than my 35 mcat. ' we just can't say that. because they have the schools. so they can decide what's important to them. do you see the fragility of such an argument?
!Originally posted by Caffeinated
Now, PathDr, are we the "ORM's" supposed to just suck it up and ignore AA? If something is morally unjust, don't we have a moral obligation in a free society to speak up? Is not the price of freedom eternal vigilance? You may complain that as a URM you have to be twice as good to get half the respect in your profession; one could argue that an "ORM" you have to be twice as good to even get INTO the profession.