Conference back40::soapbox

    could be the first step towards eliminating afirmative action...
    
    

    or even affirmative action.

    There are two teams on a basketball court.  After one quarter, it has
    definitely been confirmed that the referees were cheating...cheating to
    the point that Team A has a 16 point lead.  The game must continue and
    the points cannot be taken away.  How do we reach equity so that the
    game can be won fairly by either team.
    
    Answer: You provide reparations to the team members of the losing team
    who were directly effected and cheated.  This is allegorical to the
    Civil Rights Act.  What you don't do is give reparations to the bench,
    the waterboy, the trainee, the team doctor, and the whole team for the
    next 10 seasons.
    
    -Jack

    Re: .3
    
    >This is allegorical to the Civil Rights Act.
    
    That's "analogous" -- and no, it isn't.  The Civil Rights Act did not
    provide a level playing field.  After some 200 years of discrimination
    and oppression, you think just passing some legislation makes
    everything fair and square?  It takes a lot more to fix the problem; we
    have Affirmative Action because it was easier than doing a real fix.

ZZ   takes a lot more to fix the problem; we
ZZ      have Affirmative Action because it was easier than doing a real
ZZ  fix.
    
    The civil rights act is to act as a police officer or a conscience to
    see that discrimination does not take place.  Quotas are a violation of
    the civil rights act...which is what Affirmative Action is today.  Set
    Asides are a form of filling a quota.
    
    No...I meant allegorical.
    
    Allegory:  A literary, dramatic, or pictoral device in which each
    literal character, object, or event represents symbols illustrating an
    idea, moral, or religious principle.  American Heritage.
    
    It is an analogy but it can also be allegorical....NYahhhhhhh!!!
    
    -Jack

    Re: .5
    
    >The civil rights act is to act as a police officer or a conscience to
    >see that discrimination does not take place.
    
    Preventing discrimination does not constitute reparation for
    discrimination.  Therefore, your little "allegory" illustrates nothing
    to the point.
    
    >No...I meant allegorical.
    
    Then you used it incorrectly.  "Allegorical to" is not valid syntax.

    
    RE: .4
    
    What, in your opinion, is a 'real fix'?
    
    Paul
    

    A real fix involves eradicating the disadvantages that were the result
    of systematic discrimination.  Since this includes legal, economic,
    medical and educational disadvantages, it's hard to correct them all 
    within the timeframe of a single generation.
    
    If you limit reparation to the people who were alive when we suddenly
    said, "Oh, hey, we're sorry," then you can't eradicate some of the
    results, especially in the economic, medical and educational arenas.

    <----
    .... and your point is.....
    
    Dan

    Is it just me, or is anyone else having a difficult time parsing the
    title to this topic?

    
    How about: "Federal Set-Aside cancelled"
    

    
      The natural comparison from history would be Reconstruction.
    
      The trouble with "corrective social policies" is a practical
     one : people change their behavior after a while, and the policy
     comes to have weird results.  Example : recently, there is a
     movement among congenitally deaf parents, to block corrective
     surgery which would give their children hearing.  There are
     two reasons for this.  One is a somewhat selfish desire not to
     lose closeness in the family.  The other is economic, a calculation
     that they are better of with handouts for the deaf than with
     hearing.  (Listening to talk radio, there is something to this !).
    
      But this is a result never intended by our society when it voted
     to subsidize the deaf.
    
      I could cite similar examples with set-asides.  If the policy is
     perceived as semi-permanent, the society adjusts in ways you just
     wouldn't expect.
    
      bb

    Re: .9
    
    My point is that I'm answering a question.

    > A real fix involves eradicating the disadvantages that were the result
    > of systematic discrimination.  Since this includes legal, economic,
    > medical and educational disadvantages, it's hard to correct them all 
    > within the timeframe of a single generation.
    > 
    > If you limit reparation to the people who were alive when we suddenly
    > said, "Oh, hey, we're sorry," then you can't eradicate some of the
    > results, especially in the economic, medical and educational arenas.
    
    Such as.....  I was hoping your response would contain some concrete
    suggestions, not all these generalities.  That is the reason for .9
    
    Still wondering,
    Dan

    Re: .14
    
    >I was hoping your response would contain some concrete suggestions
    
    And while we're at it, why don't you ask me to solve world hunger,
    AIDS, and the Balkan situation?  I've said as much as I'm prepared to
    say about it.  If you don't like the answer, too bad.

    Well, while you're at it, do you think it would be too much of a bother
    to tackle those issues as well?  

    Yes.

    Chelsea:
    
    Assuming somebody is disadvantaged because of the color of their skin
    or the genitalia they do/don't possess is a fallacy!  
    
    -Jack

    >I was hoping your response would contain some concrete
    >suggestions, not all these generalities. 
    
     Two problems here: the first is that speaking in generalities is much
    easier than using specifics because specifics are easier to attack due
    to their practical shortcomings. The second is that it is much easier
    to complain about the way things are than it is to come up with a plan
    to make things better- just as it's easier to be a critic than an
    artist.
    
     Frankly, if there were an easy way to achieve an equality that was
    simultaneously satisfactory to the complainers and palatable to the
    status quo, it would have been suggested by now. Instead we talk about
    motherhood and apple pie and consider ourselves done.

    Re: .18
    
    >Assuming somebody is disadvantaged because of the color of their skin
    >or the genitalia they do/don't possess is a fallacy!
    
    On an individual level, yes.  On a general level, no.  In the case of
    black Americans, if you've been forcibly dissuaded from pursuing an
    education or acquiring substantial property or doing business with the
    majority of the population, then it's hard to reach economic parity on
    your own, let alone improve your children's lot in life.

    My personnal_name is the answer!!!   :)
    
    ...Tom

    -1
    
    I can only wish..
    
        Sin-te-da

    The problem with the Federal set asides and all of affirmative action
    is that it is racist and demeaning.
    
    Continuing with the basketball analogy, if one team cheated, or as was
    the case, played by a different set of rules, and the other team lost
    you don't forever spot them extra points.
    
    that is the problem with current policy.  It dwells on inaccurate
    assumptions and creates an environment of discrimination.  Equlity is
    something to be worked towards and encouraged at all levels of society. 
    Assuming that an entire class of people are unable and unwilling to
    achieve on their own is the height of arrogance and plantation
    mentality.
    
    All groups were able to achieve and everyone tried until the government
    stepped in and said that they knew better.  they were wrong then and
    still are.
    

    Re: .23
    
    >Assuming that an entire class of people are unable and unwilling to
    >achieve on their own is the height of arrogance and plantation
    >mentality.
    
    AA doesn't make that assumption.  It assumes that a class of people
    have more obstacles to overcome, on average, than people not in that
    class.  People who are thirty years old now aren't competing just with
    today's conditions.  Their competitiveness is to a large degree derived
    from conditions 20-25 years ago.  Did they have proper nourishment as
    children?  Did their elementary school have sufficient materials and
    facilities and teachers?  If the playing field had been level in 1970, 
    then they would have no claim for assistance now.  But it wasn't.

 ZZ   If the playing field had been level in 1970, 
 ZZ   then they would have no claim for assistance now.  But it wasn't.
    
    I went to school back then who were minorities...and would claim you
    are making a hasty generalization here!
    
    -Jack

    By the way, in case no one has mentioned it in another note,
    "Republican" Mass. governor Bill Weld has recently endorsed
    and embraced Affirmative Action wholeheartedly.  I'd enter more
    details concerning his speech on this, but to be honest, I couldn't
    get past the first paragraph of the article without blowing out
    a vein, so I put newspaper away.
    
    Chris

    Considering he is a libertarian, I am really surprised at this!
    
    -Jack

	I wanna know sumpin.  I understand the reason for affirmative
action/set-asides etc.  On the surface at least it also appears to be a noble
action.  My question is when is the job done.  Are any parameters set up to
determine that we white folk have paid for the sins of our(?) fathers, and that
people again can be judged by their abilities, and not the color of their skin,
or their plumbing fixtures?  Any of our political experts out there know.  I bet
mr bill does if he is still talking to me.

:-?
Mikey

    > It assumes that a class of people
    > have more obstacles to overcome, on average, than people not in that
    > class.

    IMO:
    If you want to make someone weak and helpless.  Do everything for them. 
    If you do this they will not have enough strength to help themselves.
    Strength comes from adversity.  To build physical muscle, you must work
    against a resistive force (weights), the same applies on a personal
    level.  

    I have found, if you want to see what a man is made of, give
    him a good stiff kick when he is down.  If he is weak, he will roll
    over and die.  If he is not, he will come up off that ground, with
    blood in his eyes, and then my friend you will have a real FIGHT on
    your hands.  

    Maybe I am the exception, but I have always found that I
    have achieved my best results when someone said "You can't do that" or
    "You're not good enough"  I have had the tar beat outta me a number of
    times, but I've NEVER LOST A FIGHT.  I've never lost, because it ain't
    over until I SAY IT'S OVER !  You can actually overcome many opponents
    through sheer perseverance.

    We value things in direct proportion to how hard they are for us to
    obtain.  If you give someone something on a silver platter, its value
    is very limited.  If you had to work three jobs, go to school, and bust
    your @ss to get it, its value is priceless.

    Well, I'll get off my soapbox now, I've said my piece for what it's
    worth.

    Dan

    Re: .25
    
    >I went to school back then who were minorities...
    
    And you should have paid more attention in English class....
    
    >you are making a hasty generalization here!
    
    I'm making a generalization, but not a hasty one.  All public policy is
    based on generalizations.

    Re: .29
    
    Well, then, we'll just fire you from this job and restrict you to jobs
    that require only physical labor.  We'll stick your kids in schools
    that have insufficient quantities of out-of-date materials.  Toss most
    of those savings (you can have a few hundred, we're nice) and give up
    your house to move to a cramped apartment.  Then in another twenty
    years we'll come back and grade you on how well your children are
    prepared to compete in the job market.
    
    Just imagine what opportunities you're depriving your children of if
    you don't.
                                          

    
    
    RE: .31  Pretty damn funny.  I'll do it, thing is, once the 20 years is
    up, you'll have to make it worth my time and effort.  You see, I'll
    work 2 or 3 jobs to be able to send my kids to a good school.  As for
    the physical labor, that's no big deal.  An honest days work for an
    honest days pay whatever you do.  Matter of fact, many times I have
    more respect for the guys riding shotgun on a trash truck than I do for
    the pretentious Ahtsy fahtsy folks who we see around town with the
    overinflated self worth.  
    
    Mike

    
    re: .31
    
    >Well, then, we'll just fire you from this job and restrict you to jobs
    >that require only physical labor.
    
    and who will you replace him with? Someone who finished in the bottom
    third of their class???
    
     Most parochial schools today deal with/use "out-of-date materials"...
    and still generate smarter kids that all those high-fallootin computer
    stocked schools! So who's better off?
    
    >move to a cramped apartment.
    
     Been there... done that...   and did a lot of schooling in those
    cramped apartments...
    

    > Well, then, we'll just fire you from this job and restrict you to jobs
    > that require only physical labor.  We'll stick your kids in schools
    > that have insufficient quantities of out-of-date materials.  Toss most
    > of those savings (you can have a few hundred, we're nice) and give up
    > your house to move to a cramped apartment.  Then in another twenty
    > years we'll come back and grade you on how well your children are
    > prepared to compete in the job market.
    > 
    > Just imagine what opportunities you're depriving your children of if
    > you don't.

    For your information "Been there, Done that!"  This suggestion is not a 
    threat to me.  I've worked lots of different jobs, few of them glamorous.  
    I'm not gonna go into the sob story, but I assure you I've seen my share 
    of hard times.  I suggest that you consider the fact you don't know my
    background before you go spouting off.  In fact, for your information,
    it was specifically because of those events that I feel the way I do.  I
    am more concerned about the future of our collective children than I
    believe you can imagine.  I feel that it is thinking like you have just
    stated that will eventually be the downfall of this country.  I do not
    believe that we will ever be conquered by an outside enemy.  Our
    greatest enemy is the slow decay of the self-worth of our children.  You
    do not get self-worth by someone saying "Oh you are just wonderful the
    way you are ...." blech !  You derive your self-worth through work,
    achievement, and recognition of achievement.  BUT THE WORK AND
    ACHIEVEMENT MUST COME FIRST ! ! !   People nowadays try to go just to
    the recognition portion.  This is bad!  If you give great praise to
    someone who did not have to work hard, the value of that praise is
    minimal, AND IT DEVALUES ANY PAST OR FUTURE PRAISE ! ! !

    The preceding is, of course, all MY opinion, and is open to praise,
    criticism, and total apathy of my fellow 'boxers.

    Regards,
    Dan

    
    Hmmm, I didn't work hard in high school, therefore I should not have
    been praised when I graduated second in my class.
    
    At MIT, I worked my butt off, but only got a overall B-average,
    therefore I should not have been praised beause I did not achieve A's.
    
    There is always someone who has acheived more than me in any particular
    facet of life.  Hence, because there's always something better that I
    should be achieving, I should never think that I'm OK as I am because
    there's something more I should achieve.
    
    Is this the gist?

    
    "All" is a preposition?

    Since when is all a preposition?

    
    
    Jack... Jack... Jack....  
    
    Sigh... what am I gonna do with you!!
    
    I think you need to get down to the Life Center and work out awhile to
    clear your head!!
    
    

    What are you people talking about???
    
    -Jack

    OKAY OKAY OKAY...I was grasping for life and blew it!!!!!  
    
    Okay Chelsea, I should've listened more in English class...HAPPY???!!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack cheated, he deleted his note.

    > Hmmm, I didn't work hard in high school, therefore I should not have
    > been praised when I graduated second in my class.
    
    No, probably not.

    > At MIT, I worked my butt off, but only got a overall B-average,
    > therefore I should not have been praised beause I did not achieve A's.
    
    Yes, you should be, because you were striving to reach you maximum
    potential.  The class that I am most proud of, I got a C in.  It was the
    hardest I had ever worked in any schooling.  The fact that I managed a
    passing grade showed me just what I could do.

    > There is always someone who has acheived more than me in any particular
    > facet of life.  Hence, because there's always something better that I
    > should be achieving, I should never think that I'm OK as I am because
    > there's something more I should achieve.
    
    I'm afraid you missed the point entirely.

    Dan

    ZZ    Jack cheated, he deleted his note.
    
    Prove it Olive!!!!!!

    Re: .32
    
    >you'll have to make it worth my time and effort
    
    Looking for a handout, are you?  Forget it.  You get the satisfaction
    you earn.  That's supposed to be the whole point.
    
    >work 2 or 3 jobs ... the physical labor, that's no big deal
    
    Eighty hours of physical labor a week is no big deal.  Let's see, at
    minimum wage, you're still earning less than $300 a week.  That'll put
    the kids in a great school, all right.

    Re: .33
    
    >and who will you replace him with? Someone who finished in the bottom
    >third of their class???
    
    Hey, even the bottom-third of the class winds up with jobs somewhere. 

    Re: .34
    
    >I feel that it is thinking like you have just stated that will 
    >eventually be the downfall of this country.
    
    Ah, so you think it _would_ be bad for children if their parents had
    low-paid labor jobs and the kids themselves were sent to substandard
    schools.  So glad we agree.
    
    >You do not get self-worth by someone saying "Oh you are just wonderful 
    >the way you are ...."
    
    That's very nice, but what does it have to do with affirmative action?

    > >I feel that it is thinking like you have just stated that will 
    > >eventually be the downfall of this country.
    > 
    > Ah, so you think it _would_ be bad for children if their parents had
    > low-paid labor jobs and the kids themselves were sent to substandard
    > schools.  So glad we agree.
    
    No, I was refering to what you seemed to be implying.  That we should
    give these people handouts.  That's was it amounts to, handouts.  They
    are not earning this money, they have never earned the goods that they
    are getting.  If a man is unwilling to work he should starve.  Charity
    should be the venue of the church (pick one).
    
    Dan

    Latest newsmag (either Time or Newsweek) has an article about Colin
    Powell, who is more for affirmative action than against.  Of course,
    the army is probably the best example of affirmative action at work. 
    One thing he said is that he didn't think blacks who were well-off
    should benefit from affirmative action.
    
    My response was, "Well, duh."  But then, perhaps my views of
    affirmative action are unusual.  I believe AA was implemented as a way
    to help people overcome obstacles that put them at a competitive
    disadvantage.  So perhaps the more comfortable, and fair, approach is
    to identify what constitutes obstacles and give a little more
    opportunity to those who have tried to overcome them.  For example,
    many districts are able to rank their schools.  You might have two
    students, both with a 3.4 average.  But one earned that average in the
    second-best school and the other in the second worst.  In that case,
    prference should be given to the student from the worse school; chances
    are that student worked harder anyway.

    > Of course,
    > the army is probably the best example of affirmative action at work. 
    
    Care to explain this ?
        
    > For example,
    > many districts are able to rank their schools.  You might have two
    > students, both with a 3.4 average.  But one earned that average in the
    > second-best school and the other in the second worst.  In that case,
    > prference should be given to the student from the worse school; chances
    > are that student worked harder anyway.
    
    While you're at it explain this to.  Why should we give ANYONE an edge? 
    That is WRONG, you are cheating both students!  Let each student
    succeed or fail on their own merit.  If they went to a "worse school"
    (interesting concept, I thought we were striving for equality) so be
    it, they just have to work harder.
    
    Dan (serious as a heart-attack)
    

    Re: .48
    
    >That's was it amounts to, handouts. 
    
    No.  If it was a handout, we wouldn't make them work or get grades.
    
    >If a man is unwilling to work he should starve.
    
    But they are willing to work.  They're out there applying for jobs,
    after all.

    
    anyone who wants to wrk can work.  I'll bet you here and now that I can
    go out and have at least 3 jobs within a week.
    
    Mike

    re: .51
    
    Obviously you and I are not talking about the same people.

    Dan

    Re: .50
    
    >Care to explain this ?
    
    The army decided it wanted to improve minority representation in the
    upper echelons.  It provides more opportunities for minority
    advancement.  However, it makes sure the people they're going to
    promote really work on improving themselves and doing the job.
    
    >Why should we give ANYONE an edge? 
    
    If you have one opening and more than one candidate, someone gets an
    edge and the others lose out.
    
    >If they went to a "worse school" (interesting concept, I thought we 
    >were striving for equality)
    
    We are, but we have hardly acheived it.
    
    >so be it, they just have to work harder.
    
    My point is, they probably did.
    
    >serious as a heart-attack
    
    I'm seriously tempted to comment on the resulting loss of blood to a 
    certain vital organ, but I'll only partially refrain.

    Re: .53
    
    >Obviously you and I are not talking about the same people.
    
    My guess is that you're talking about people on welfare, and I'm
    talking about people who benefit from affirmative action.

    Re: .52
    
    >anyone who wants to wrk can work.
    
    Sure.  But can they support a family?  As I said, 3 jobs on minimum
    wage still puts you under $300 a week.  That's before taxes.

    Chelsea:
    
    I understand what you are saying but it is still a generalization.
    If you take a black student who really tried hard at an inner city
    school and use Affirmative Action to overcome his obstacles, you are
    denying the white student who attended that very same school...and
    tried his best.  There is inequity between the two because you are
    basing your justice if you will, on the color of skin.  This is
    discrimination.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    Under $300 a week?  Interesting.  And which math is that wich you are
    using?
    

    > The army decided it wanted to improve minority representation in the
    > upper echelons.  It provides more opportunities for minority
    > advancement.  However, it makes sure the people they're going to
    > promote really work on improving themselves and doing the job.

    Sounds like they were promoting on ability, now that is AA in action.

    > If you have one opening and more than one candidate, someone gets an
    > edge and the others lose out.

    Yeah, the person better qualified.  Hire people based on ability, not
    skin color or any other irrelevant issue.

    > >so be it, they just have to work harder.
    > 
    > My point is, they probably did.

    How on God's green earth do you figure that.  If anything, they had it
    easier because the people they were competing against were probably
    trying less hard than the kids from the "better school".

    > >serious as a heart-attack
    > 
    > I'm seriously tempted to comment on the resulting loss of blood to a 
    > certain vital organ, but I'll only partially refrain.

    Your response to this is childish.  I was trying to indicate that this
    is not a mental exercise to me.  I was trying to indicate that I take
    this issue very seriously.  I made this a point because often my
    responses in other topics have been "tongue-in-cheek".

    Dan

    Re: .57
    
    >you are denying the white student who attended that very same school...
    >and tried his best
    
    If his best wasn't as good as the black student's best, well, so it
    goes.  In general, I would believe that a black student has to overcome
    more obstacles to success than a white student in the same school.  If
    the two make the same grades, then the black student has achieved more
    because she/he started from farther behind.
    
    Note that I said "in general."  I can well believe that some white
    children might have more to deal with than some black children.

    Re: .58
    
    >And which math is that wich you are using?
    
    Actually, I'm not entirely sure what minimum wage is; have they raised
    it over $4.00 an hour?

    Re: .59
    
    >Sounds like they were promoting on ability, now that is AA in action.
    
    They specifically left more slots open for minority soldiers.  They
    went looking for minorities they could promote.
    
    >the person better qualified.
    
    Oh, dear, am I going to have to skewer that sacred cow again?  (Hint: 
    if it were standard business practice to hire the person with the best
    qualifications, people would never have been denied jobs because they
    were overqualified.)
    
    >they had it easier because the people they were competing against were 
    >probably trying less hard than the kids from the "better school"
    
    What competition?  I mentioned a grade point average.  You can use SAT
    scores, if you want.  They have managed to achieve a good standard of
    education in a bad school.  That's harder than achieving a good
    standard of education in a good school.
    
    >I was trying to indicate that this is not a mental exercise to me.
    
    You assumed that I needed a hint, and that the content and tone of your
    notes were insufficient indication?  How rude.
    
    >I made this a point because often my responses in other topics have 
    >been "tongue-in-cheek".
    
    I don't pay that much attention to the usernames on the notes.

    
    
    Dan...
    
     Give it up while you still have your sanity....
    
    
     NNTTM... :)
    

 ZZ    I would believe that a black student has to overcome
 ZZ       more obstacles to success than a white student in the same school. 
    
    Again an assumption...which continues to drive a wedge between persons 
    of color.  It all boils down to legalized discrimination and quotas. 
    This is in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
    
    -Jack

    > >Sounds like they were promoting on ability, now that is AA in action.
    > 
    > They specifically left more slots open for minority soldiers.  They
    > went looking for minorities they could promote.

    So they were promoting inferior officers.... how is this good ?

    > >the person better qualified.
    > 
    > Oh, dear, am I going to have to skewer that sacred cow again?  (Hint: 
    > if it were standard business practice to hire the person with the best
    > qualifications, people would never have been denied jobs because they
    > were overqualified.)
    
    HELLLOOOO !  That is my point!  The business SHOULD higher the better
    qualified person!

    > >they had it easier because the people they were competing against were 
    > >probably trying less hard than the kids from the "better school"
    > 
    > What competition?  I mentioned a grade point average.  You can use SAT
    > scores, if you want.  They have managed to achieve a good standard of
    > education in a bad school.  That's harder than achieving a good
    > standard of education in a good school.
    
    You mentioned grade point average... Ever heard of grading on a
    curve...?  "That's harder than achieving a good...."   Horse pucky !
    You get out of an education exactly what you put into it.  Also from
    what I understand there is a better teacher to student ratio in public
    schools vs. private schools.  How does this jibe with what you say ?

    > >I was trying to indicate that this is not a mental exercise to me.
    > 
    > You assumed that I needed a hint, and that the content and tone of your
    > notes were insufficient indication?  How rude.
    
    You obviously think quite highly of yourself, you think that every
    thing I write is directed solely to you (there is a word for this, but
    it is escaping me right now).  I was actually commenting to the general
    reading audience, so that they would understand that I am serious.

    > >I made this a point because often my responses in other topics have 
    > >been "tongue-in-cheek".
    > 
    > I don't pay that much attention to the usernames on the notes.

    no, you probably don't, however other people do.  See my previous
    statement.
    
    Dan

    
    
      You wanna know why things are so messed up out here,...here's
      why.
    
      The Jeremiah E. Burke High School is one of five high schools 
      in Boston that are on probation and have lost accreditation:
    
      
      * not enough books in ANY of the classrooms.
    
      * one guidance councillor for 934 students
    
      * no librarian ,...library closed due to inadequate book supply
    
      * teacher negligence -- i.e. students periodically during the
        day do errands for some teachers like,...go to the cleaners,
        .....McDonalds,......buy lottery scratch tickets,...etc.
    
      * inadequate college preparatory curriculum
    
      * there's not ONE pc in the entire school,...not even in the
        principal's office.
    
      * all course scheduling is done manually
    
      All of this is documented in The Boston Globe over the past month,
      reviewing education in Boston.
    
      What kind of BS is this,...how would you like to send your kids
      to this place??
    
    
      Ed

    I wouldn't at all Ed.  Which is why Jesse Jackson sends all his kids to
    private schools in D.C.  Very smart of him.  Yet the public school
    dinosaur wants to continue with status quo.  
    
    Make schools competitive and you will alleviate much of this
    problem...for starters anyway.  How involved are the parents?
    
    -Jack

    
    
      Based on the reports,...there's not much parent activity in
      the school. But this is the way it is in urban school systems
      across the nation that have student bodies that are predominantly
      poor.
    
      Many of these kids have single poor mothers,...who gave birth to
      these kids,...when they were "kids".
    
      If we,....as a nation,...continue to "graduate" illiterates,..
      ...from our schools,....we're destined for MAJOR TROUBLE!
    
      ....and I'm talkin' about civil disorder!
    
    
      Ed

    Well Ed:
    
    If there is to be set asides...THE FIRST place I would put it toward is
    our urban school systems because I agree with you wholeheartedly on
    this one.  The public schools are a bastion of many different social
    problems...one you alluded to which is children having more children.
    
    Give a man a fish he eats for a day.  Teach a man to fish he eats for a
    lifetime.  It's hokey but it's true!
    
    -Jack

    There are probably many rural school districts in America that have
    major problems also.  When I was in high school (this being the early
    80's) Henniker high school was having accredation problems.  Henniker
    is a very small town in central NH.  If your high school is not
    accredited it doesn't matter how hard you work, your degree isn't worth
    the paper it's printed on.
    
    Lisa  

    Re: .64
    
    It's for people like you that I tacked on the last paragraph.

    Re: .65
    
    >So they were promoting inferior officers.... how is this good ?
    
    Inferior to what?  To their standards for officers?  No.  To some
    non-minority officers?  Possibly.  How is it good to have a reasonable
    number of minority officers?  To inspire other minorities to achieve
    and to improve morale.
    
    >The business SHOULD higher the better qualified person!
    
    Then you know piddly about business.  Qualifications means things like
    test scores and experience, right?  Well, I might hire a less-qualified
    person (who still met the job requirements) if it meant paying a lower
    salary or not having to pay for relocation.  I might even hire someone
    who is bright, but under-qualified, so I can train them in my own
    methods.  I am unlikely to hire someone who is overqualified, because
    they are more likely to be dissatisfied with their work and I have no
    career path for them.  I'd rather hire someone who can grow with the
    organization, sticking around and repaying my investment in them.
    
    >Ever heard of grading on a curve...?
    
    Sure.  Not everyone grades the same way, though.
    
    >You get out of an education exactly what you put into it.
    
    If your school library doesn't have any books, you wind up doing extra
    work for research papers, scouting out other sources and spending more
    after-school time.  Someone who does a good research paper under those
    circumstances has invested more, for the same return, than someone
    whose school library is well-stocked.  They put in more, but they
    didn't get more.
    
    >what I understand there is a better teacher to student ratio in public
    >schools vs. private schools.
    
    First, you need to support that.  Second, private schools have a number
    of advantages -- including parents who have made the decision to put
    more effort into their children's education and be more involved. 
    Class size is hardly the only differentiating factor.  You might be
    able to show correlation; you can't demonstrate causality.
    
    >you think that every thing I write is directed solely to you
    
    It certainly was _addressed_ to me.  But you can substitute "the
    general Soapbox population" for "I" and it changes nothing.

    > How is it good to have a reasonable
    > number of minority officers?  To inspire other minorities to achieve
    > and to improve morale.

    Horse Pucky !  If this were the case you would not be hearing things
    like "Oh he's just the token ________".  The only thing that promoting
    a less qualified minority does is degrade the minorities who actually
    EARNED their positions.

    > Then you know piddly about business.  

    Ha ha ha ha.... There you go spouting off again without knowing my
    background.  I assure you that in all probability I know much more
    about business than you EVER WILL.... but I'm not going to bother 
    educating you here....

    > Qualifications means things like
    > test scores and experience, right?  Well, I might hire a less-qualified
    > person (who still met the job requirements) if it meant paying a lower
    > salary or not having to pay for relocation.  

    If a person would cost me more than they would bring me, then by
    definition, they are not qualified for the job.  Also what makes you
    think I'd pay someone what their worth?  Obviously your lack of
    business knowledge.... You pay someone the absolute least you can to
    keep them.  The employee is trying to squeeze out the most they can
    with out getting canned.

    > I might even hire someone
    > who is bright, but under-qualified, so I can train them in my own
    > methods.  

    Trainablity is a qualification, if a person is not highly trainable and
    flexible, they are nearly worthless.

    > I am unlikely to hire someone who is overqualified, because
    > they are more likely to be dissatisfied with their work and I have no
    > career path for them.  

    This is pure manure.  You are assuming that because someone is
    overqualified they will be dissatisfied with their work and leave.  I 
    assure you that there is no basis for this.  If this were true, nearly
    half the people currently working in the USA would quit and go do
    something else.  Most people are more concerned with losing their jobs,
    than looking for a new one.  It takes a lot to get the average person
    off their butts to look for a new job, they hate looking.  I've seen it
    time and time again.

    > I'd rather hire someone who can grow with the
    > organization, sticking around and repaying my investment in them.
    
    If you follow this precept, you will be bankrupt within five years. 
    You generally don't have that kind of time in todays business
    environment.  If the person can not perform today, your company will
    not be here later.

    > Someone who does a good research paper under those
    > circumstances has invested more, for the same return, than someone
    > whose school library is well-stocked.  They put in more, but they
    > didn't get more.
    
    Wrong.  They have gotten more from having put forth the extra effort
    and succeeding, than the other student could possibly get.  

    > >what I understand there is a better teacher to student ratio in public
    > >schools vs. private schools.
    > 
    > First, you need to support that.  

    No, I don't need to support it, it's not truly important to the
    discussion.  If it had been I would have researched it.

    > Second, private schools have a number
    > of advantages -- including parents who have made the decision to put
    > more effort into their children's education and be more involved. 
    
    Are you saying that minorities aren't as good parents?

    Actually that whole point is irrelevant, because the main bone of
    contention regarding AA amounts to promoting less qualified individuals 
    in favor of better qualified ones.  There is no way you are going to be
    able to argue your way around that.

    Dan

    Re: .73
    
    >If this were the case you would not be hearing things like "Oh he's
    >just the token ________".
    
    Do people in the Army say that about minority officers?
    
    >There you go spouting off again without knowing my background.
    
    True.  But then, you provided empirical evidence of not knowing much at
    all about hiring practices.
    
    >If a person would cost me more than they would bring me, then by
    >definition, they are not qualified for the job.
    
    Wrong.  You're arguing about promoting less-qualified minorities.  Your
    definition of "less-qualified" in that argument does not include
    salary.  Therefore, you cannot change the definiiton of "qualified" or
    "less-qualified" in mid-stream to include salary.
    
    >You pay someone the absolute least you can to keep them.  The employee
    >is trying to squeeze out the most they can with out getting canned.
    
    Wow, I'm getting more and more impressed with your business acumen.
    
    >if a person is not highly trainable and flexible
    
    Yes, but I didn't say the person was easier to train.  I said the
    person had to be trained.  The other candidates might have been just as
    quick to pick things up, but I decided I'd rather train than retrain.
    
    >You are assuming that because someone is overqualified they will be 
    >dissatisfied with their work and leave.
    
    I'm assuming that many things can happen; leaving is one of them.
    
    >If this were true, nearly half the people currently working in the USA 
    >would quit and go do something else.
    
    It's extremely ironic that your preceding sentence is "I assure you
    there is no basis for this."
    
    >If the person can not perform today
    
    But then can.  You hire someone to do a job.  They do it.  They're
    eligible for promotion.  You promote them.  They do the job.  Happens
    all the time in organizations.
    
    >They have gotten more from having put forth the extra effort and 
    >succeeding, than the other student could possibly get.
    
    What "more" have they gotten?  They have learned as much and done as
    well.  If extra effort is inherently rewarding, then I suggest you walk
    around all day with your ankles hobbled together.  Just think how much
    more you'll get out of walking to the cafeteria than everyone else.
    
    >it's not truly important to the discussion
    
    If it's not important, then why bother to bring it up?  Are all your
    notions so trivial?
    
    >Are you saying that minorities aren't as good parents?
    
    I have no idea what leap of "logic" brought you to this question. 
    Private schools have more involved parents than public schools.  Since
    some students at private schools are minorities and some students at
    public schools are non-minorities, you can't infer anything about
    minority or non-minority parents from a statement about public versus
    private school.  Well, obviously you can -- but you really shouldn't.
    
    >There is no way you are going to be able to argue your way around that.
    
    Nope.  Been there, done that.

  Z   you can't infer anything about
  Z   minority or non-minority parents from a statement about public versus
  Z   private school.  Well, obviously you can -- but you really shouldn't.
    
    Right...which is the point I was making with you.  You cannot make the
    assumption that an individual needs Affirmative Action because the
    whole group was oppressed.  It is the same fallable generalization you
    claim is made above.
    
    -Jack

    Re: .75
    
    >You cannot make the assumption that an individual needs Affirmative 
    >Action because the whole group was oppressed.
    
    First, I explicitly highlighted that I was making a generalization. 
    Then, in the note about Colin Powell, I stated that minorities who are
    well off do not need to benefit from Affirmative Action.  I then
    proposed basing AA not on minority status but on the presence of
    identifiable obstacles to achievement.
    
    And yet somehow, for some reason, you still seem to think that you need
    to make this "point" of yours over and over and over again.  Somehow,
    for some reason, you apparently think that I haven't "gotten" it, that
    I have inexplicably failed to understand what you're trying to say.
    
    What do you want?  A pat on the head?  Stop following me around.

    
    
    Oooooooooo.... another stalking candidate!!!
    
    

    CHELSEA,
        Your lack of understanding of business is astounding.  Please do
    yourself a favor and keep a job, if you try to run a business following
    even some of the policies that you advocate here you will lose yourself
    and your investors a lot of money.  This is a hard thing for me to say
    because normally I would advocate that everyone should start a
    business.  I guess I'm wrong.  There really are some people who need to
    work for someone else.  I am very glad however that the majority of
    people in this country are more willing to accept reality than you seem
    to be able to.

    With sincerest regards to for future, 
    continuing status as a "captive employee"

    Dan

  
   <cringe>

    Re: .78
    
    Well, since I'm a corporate captive, I might as well start sucking up
    to the corporate big shots.  I'll start by telling your manager how
    you're just out to take Digital for anything you can without getting
    fired.  But hey, I'm sure he's used to people with that kind of
    attitude, so it won't hurt you any.

    <------
    Haa haa haaa  .......  go right ahead .....
    
    :-)
    Dan

    You're not worth the effort.

    CHILDREN!

    
    
    
    Watch out kids, Chip is going to pull the car over if you keep it
    up......

    A car?!?  Gracious, don't you know that you'll get so much more out of
    the trip if you walk?  All that extra effort, you know.
    
    You didn't use a screen editor, did you?  Imagine how much more you
    would have gotten out of the experience if you had used a line editor.
    In fact, just think how rewarding your life would be if you could get
    Notes to run on one of those old paper terminals.  I tell you, you're
    missing out on some marvelous opportunities to enrich your life.

    I now see why my argument was unsuccessful in swaying Chelsea's
    opinion.  I was assuming that I was talking to a rational human being. 
    This last note has convinced me otherwise.

    "Don't argue with a fool, people might not be able to tell the
    difference."
              Murphy's Law

    Dan

    >I now see why my argument was unsuccessful in swaying Chelsea's
    >opinion.
    
    Oh, but you did.  Can't you see how I've converted?  You said, as
    serious as a heart attack, that a student who had resources readily 
    available got less out of writing a term paper than a student who had
    to scrounge for resources.  Since the only difference was the amount of 
    effort expended, the conclusion is that you must believe more effort
    makes the task more rewarding.
    
    And here I am urging people to expend more effort in the tasks they
    carry out.  I'm spreading your word.  Think of me as your own personal 
    proselytizer, preaching your wisdom throughout Soapbox.  And I'm not
    even charging you for it.
    
    I would be crushed by your ingratitude, but I think you're just trying
    to make my task harder, and therefore more rewarding.  It's really very
    thoughtful of you, and don't think I don't appreciate it.

    
    
    I warned you Dan... but noooooooooooo!!! You wouldn't listen.. would
    you!!!
    

    > I warned you Dan... but noooooooooooo!!! You wouldn't listen.. would
    > you!!!

    Oh, she isn't bothering me, I just feel sorry that the rest of you have
    to listen to the inane drivel.

    :-)
    Dan

    Excerpt of a letter To The Editor, from today's TNYTs:
    
    (Not commenting on why Ms. Wohlberg thought it best to spend
     Independence day at the PC composing a blistering letter to
     The New York Times....)
    
    "Grade Inflation Demeans Good Students"
    
    ...
    
    Over my strong objections one semester, the chairman of my department
    [at Boston University's School of Management] changed a student's F
    (32 out of a possible 105 points) to a passing grade.  The
    justification?  "Both of his parents are lawyers."
    
    That student now holds the same degree as his peers who earned it.
    
    Janet W. Wohlberg
    Boston, July 4, 1995
    
    ----
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    Which is why many qualified candidates to teach stay away from
    academia.  They are disillusioned with the whole process.
    
    Meanwhile our worthy secondary educational institutions are being
    prostituted by the touchy feeley ilk of society!
    
    -Jack

    Ummm, the logic escapes me; his parents are both lawyers?  Sounds
    more like his parents are lawyers who make heavy financial contri-
    butions back to the school (not that this makes it right).
    
    Still a shame for students who earned their grades, though.
    
    

Maybe they're lawyers who like to sue.

    	Regardless of reasons for the false grade, it is as wrong as
    	any other artificial advantage such as quotas.

    
    Ah, Joe assumes that the student was a white male I see.
    
    If he was, today he walks the walk and talks the talk of any other
    BU MBA.  (FWIW.)
    
    But a non-white and/or female classmate who EARNED the same degree
    walks the walk and talks the talk of any other BU MBA.  (FWIW.)
    But some here would say that student wouldn't be qualified.
    
    								-mr. bill

    As usual, Mr. Bill reads into things as he wants to read into them.
    
    The whole argument on quotas is putting anybody...ANYBODY in a position
    to which they are underqualified and will have a negative impact on the
    business.  Equal to that is that fact that discrimination is illegal in
    this country....or didn't you know that!

    
    Joe's note reads:
>    	Regardless of reasons for the false grade, it is as wrong as
>    	any other artificial advantage such as quotas.
    
    Mr. bill's note reads:
>>    Ah, Joe assumes that the student was a white male I see.
    
    
    	anyone else go "huh?"? I didn't read Joe saying the student was
    white. I read Joe saying that it is wrong to use any type of artificial
    advantage to get something you didn't earn.
    
    jim

    	What's the game here, bill?
    
    	You post something about an injustice.  I comment that it's
    	bad.  You attack me.
    
    	Maybe, then, you were posting it to say that the grade inflation
    	was good?  Help me out so that I can understand your purpose, bill.

    re: .98
    
    I did!  I did!

    
    4 days and no scathing retort from billy boy??????
    
    Oh... I forgot.... eating crow is not his bailiwick... waiting a few
    days till things cool off is more his style...
    
    "Ever see Paris?.... Ever see New Dehli?..."
    

    I think the Federal Set-aside program in question is the 8(a) program
    by Small Business Administration for minority owned businesses and no,
    it has not been eliminated...Digital happens to have a lot of 8(a)
    business partners as do any reputable Fortune 500 firm.