FREEP THIS POLL about Affirmative Action!

Conservative commentary on Berkeley life

Freeped

BTTT

They're losing 2 to 1, so they've locked-out the voting.

They're losing 2 to 1, so they've locked-out the voting.

Who is running the poll--AlGore???

64%...no!

Done. They only let you vote once though. They take a cookie out of your computer. I'm sure enterprising Freepers will get around this.

FReeped.
67% agreeing with Ward Connerly!

From the article:

It's the world of race privacy, the latest scam from the mind of Ward Connerly.

No question about how Emil wants this poll to come out.

...race censorship...

Let me get this straight: if the gubmint is no longer in the racial preferences business, Emil equates this to a form of state censorship?

Good grief, we can't have Americans being judged on the content of their character, can we?

And on that note, Emil, you're an @sshole.

BTTT

Just voted. These race hustlers really dislike Ward Connerly, don't they? Ward Connerly is hiw own man, and the poverty pimps just can't deal with it.

Done. They only let you vote once though. They take a cookie out of your computer. I'm sure enterprising Freepers will get around this.

Heck, they tell you exactly why your second vote isn't counted. Try deleting the "polls" cookie in your Temporary Internet Files directory, and see if you can vote again.

Good grief, we can't have Americans being judged on the content of their character, can we?

Amen!

After being admitted to grad school a few years back, the school sent me a postcard asking about my race...presumably so that they could certify to the government that they weren't discriminating in their admissions policy. I left the race checkboxes blank, but added my GMAT score and undergraduate GPA, and commented that they only had a problem if someone with better credentials was denied admission.

freeped

"...The San Francisco Chronicle is having a fit about people voting in their poll so they made it more difficult to do. Here's what you need to do: go here and look on the right for the poll box. There's an icon that reads "click here to vote." Click on that and register your votes...

Hey FREEPERS, we need more help on this poll. The count is running about 50-50!

Now they've buried it to the left side, half way down page, "New & Features>Polls"

Anyone care to read my exchange with Little Emil today? What an eye opener: It's not schtick. And RPI is not about affirmative action. You won that with 209. This is about information. But good attempt to move the debate to something you feel strongly about. Go call a talk show. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Emil Guillermo "emil@amok.com"" Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:36 AM Subject: Re: Re: "Ah, color blindness..." > Allow me to make it extremely simple for you: > > Emil #1 > Talent and skill: Emil competes for job at Chronicle, against 30 other candidates, white, black, hispanic. Emil gets job based on superior ability to manage demanding expectations of job. Criteria: talent, in the competitive marketplace. > > Emil #2: > Diversity and affirmative action: Emil competes for job, prefers that criteria for selection be based on his being member of class of minorities that is "underrepresented". Emil has superior skills to qualify. Emil doesn't get job, because government establishes law that candidate #22 who DOES NOT POSSESS AS HIGH A SKILL LEVEL AS EMIL, should get job nonetheless, as member of a MORE PROTECTED CLASS THAN EMIL. > > Conclusion: does Emil file lawsuit to force government to give him job he earned based on color blind criteria? Or does Emil accept the decision, knowing his skin color, and not his talent, precluded him from being hired? Criteria: skin color, in the non-competitive marketplace, where 12% of the class of candidate #22 is underrespresented. > > You lose the argument on every front. Try it with your friends, see how your schtick plays. > > > > From: "Emil Guillermo \(emil@amok.com\)" > > Date: 2002/05/08 Wed PM 01:23:01 EDT > > To: > > Subject: Re: Re: "Ah, color blindness..." > > > > I don't get the logic of your last statement. But that's okay. > > Go in peace. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: "Emil Guillermo "emil@amok.com"" > > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:21 AM > > Subject: Re: Re: "Ah, color blindness..." > > > > > > > I am as sadly deluded as you are incapable of telling the 24% of those who > > disagree with Connerly that you have a job because of your talent and merit, > > rather than your skin color. To this truth, you are too cowardly to testify. > > > > > > > > From: "Emil Guillermo \(emil@amok.com\)" > > > > Date: 2002/05/08 Wed PM 01:11:21 EDT > > > > To: > > > > Subject: Re: Re: "Ah, color blindness..." > > > > > > > > I call it as I see it. > > > > The only way the status quo can be protected in a diverse society is to > > > > declare society officially colorblind. > > > > If you don't see that, you are sadly deluded. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: > > > > To: "Emil Guillermo "emil@amok.com"" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 9:51 AM > > > > Subject: Re: Re: "Ah, color blindness..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > Competition gave you and me, our jobs based on talent, to which you > > > > earlier agreed. Color blindness gives advantage to those who qualify, > > and BY > > > > DEFINITION, not color. Please, move on, you are locked into your opinion > > no > > > > matter what the facts. And, I understand that. To admit the falsehood > > would > > > > be to discredit the premises of the agenda. > > > > > > > > > > If you review our entire correspondence, you'll see that I never > > employed > > > > a device you decided to resort to when the quality of your argument > > > > dissolved: "Here's what gets at most white Americans." > > > > > > > > > > It's an approach, I would never resort to, and one I'm not allowed to > > use > > > > anyway. 76%, and you and the Chronicle wonder why readership is > > declining, > > > > and why staff at the Chronicle continue to suffer layoffs. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Emil Guillermo \(emil@amok.com\)" > > > > > > Date: 2002/05/08 Wed PM 12:26:38 EDT > > > > > > To: "patrick mallon" > > > > > > Subject: Re: "Ah, color blindness..." > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's what gets at most white Americans. > > > > > > The competition is greater now than its ever been. > > > > > > Color blindness is embraced because it gives an advantage to whites. > > > > > > It eliminates affirmative action, real information on actual > > > > discrimination, > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > That's what Connerly's doing. > > > > > > > > > > > > When there's more minorities than ever,colorblindness is a defense. > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "patrick mallon" > > > > > > To: "Emil Guillermo (emil@amok.com)" > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 8:50 AM > > > > > > Subject: Re: "Ah, color blindness..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Emil: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The presumption is indeed that people are hired on talent. By all > > > > means > > > > > > > perform a study, all will benefit by that. But once the study > > produces > > > > > > > statistical results, don't use those statistics as an instrument > > to > > > > deny > > > > > > > the primacy of talent predicating reward. Racism should be rooted > > out. > > > > I > > > > > > > of course agree with you. And if it is by talent, hard work, and > > > > > > > perspiration required to achieve the objective, then perhaps Emil, > > > > > > > people will be far happier, and less likely to be racially-biased, > > > > when > > > > > > > we are judged by our skills and what we bring to the table as > > > > > > > intelligent and fair individuals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a good day, > > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Emil Guillermo (emil@amok.com)" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The presumption is people are hired on talent. > > > > > > > > Statistics that show a lack of diversity in a field show the > > need > > > > for > > > > > > study. > > > > > > > > Or shouldn't racism be rooted out? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: "patrick mallon" > > > > > > > > To: "Emil Guillermo (emil@amok.com)" > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 8:37 AM > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: "Ah, color blindness..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Emil: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You distinguish yourself, meriting your position, based on > > talent. > > > > You > > > > > > > > > sound like a solid individual, grounded in intellectual > > substance. > > > > > > It's > > > > > > > > > the integrity of your argument that I question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What denial of this other talent to which you refer is > > occuring? > > > > > > That's > > > > > > > > > discrimination. Where's the evidence? > > > > > > > > > If it's there, and ethnic minorities are being specifically > > denied > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > positions, even when they qualify, based strictly on their > > skin > > > > color, > > > > > > > > > you'll never find it, because it's not there. Companies and > > > > government > > > > > > > > > bend over backward to afford opportunities to minorities, to > > the > > > > point > > > > > > > > > of excluding those who qualify when merit and grade criteria > > > > should > > > > > > > > > supersede (as in the documented UC cases to which you didn't > > > > respond). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I distinctly interpret your argument to go both ways. One rule > > for > > > > > > you, > > > > > > > > > another for an ethnic minority. You indeed require a > > statistical > > > > > > > > > validation of ethnic minorities in these positions, based on > > > > status, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > not talent. That is why I contacted you, and you have provided > > me > > > > with > > > > > > > > > your answer. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Emil Guillermo (emil@amok.com)" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The statistic I gave is used to indicate what we get from > > data. > > > > > > > > > > We find an industry that is not as open to ethnic > > minorities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the question is, what can be done about it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Information lets people know something should be done. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > From: "patrick mallon" > > > > > > > > > > To: "Emil Guillermo (emil@amok.com)" > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 8:01 AM > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: "Ah, color blindness..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You were hired based on talent. I am very happy for you, > > > > that's > > > > > > > > entirely > > > > > > > > > > > fair and reasonable. But that's not enough I guess, > > > > contradicting > > > > > > > > > > > yourself by referring to "why am I one of the few people > > of > > > > color > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > industry (less than 12 percent)." Are you counting? Are > > the > > > > 88% > > > > > > > > > > > "divisive." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The talent will find it's way to the opportunity. If this > > > > isn't > > > > > > > > > > > satisfactory to you, perhaps you should assist this > > "talent" > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > discovering a path to its appropriate destination, to > > which > > > > they > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > hired, like you, based on talent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisive rhetoric? Looks like the Chronicle's website with > > 76% > > > > in > > > > > > > > favor > > > > > > > > > > > of Ward Connerly constitutes a lot of "divisive people" > > huh? > > > > > > There's > > > > > > > > > > > your next piece Emil, attack those who back RPI. Opps, > > sorry, > > > > my > > > > > > bad, > > > > > > > > > > > you already do! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Emil Guillermo (emil@amok.com)" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To answer your question: I was hired based on talent. > > Not on > > > > > > quota. > > > > > > > > > > > > But why am I one of the few people of color in the > > industry > > > > > > (less > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > 12 > > > > > > > > > > > > percent). > > > > > > > > > > > > There' s no lack of talent out there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also blatantly misrepresent my position. Diversity > > is > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > seperatist. > > > > > > > > > > > > Diversity means I can be Asian American and American. > > > > America is > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > > one, but many. Together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look at your own divisive rhetoric. It mimic's > > Connerly's > > > > > > > > divisiveness > > > > > > > > > > > > perfectly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "patrick mallon" > > > > > > > > > > > > To: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:45 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: re: "Ah, color blindness..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Emil: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears from your article "Ah, Color Blindness? > > > > Connerly's > > > > > > > > > > Deceptive > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vision" that separatism should triumph over > > integration. > > > > If > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > true, and to assuage your disapproval with Ward > > Connerly's > > > > > > > > initiative, > > > > > > > > > > > > > then I should judge you, and anything you write, based > > on > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > > ethnicity, and not the content, quality of research, > > > > factual > > > > > > > > > > > > > representation, and persuasion of your columns. Is > > this > > > > what > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > prefer your readership to do? Or would we be guilty > > of > > > > > > racism? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You failed to mention the number of students who have > > been > > > > > > denied > > > > > > > > > > entry > > > > > > > > > > > > > into elite UC colleges, not based on SAT scores and > > GPA's > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > surpassed > > > > > > > > > > > > > those of other students, but because of ethnic traits > > they > > > > did > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > possess. Would you rather that you go into surgery, > > under > > > > the > > > > > > > > steady > > > > > > > > > > > > > hand of a medical practitioner who has earned his or > > her > > > > > > stripes > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > > > > > upon their outstanding ability to perform the > > operation > > > > > > > > successfully, > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > save your life, or instead be operated on by a doctor > > who > > > > > > > > qualified > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > medical school, not because of grades and superior > > talent, > > > > but > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > > of skin color. And the answer is? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to the poll question next to your article on > > the > > > > > > > > Chronicle's > > > > > > > > > > > > > website (as of 5/8), looks like 76% agree with Mr. > > > > Connerly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What say about Content of one's character, versus > > color of > > > > > > one's > > > > > > > > skin > > > > > > > > > > > > > Emil? Where does that fit in your pantheon of > > priorities? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You describe the RPI initiative, an initiative that > > uses > > > > by > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > way, > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > EXACT language of the 1964 Civil Rights law, as "The > > > > latest > > > > > > scam." > > > > > > > > > > > > > Question? What is this country denying you? > > Specifically? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Protection from all enemies, domestic and foreign? > > check > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wealth and opportunity? check > > > > > > > > > > > > > Freedom of speech? check > > > > > > > > > > > > > Advantage based on ethnicity? Not unless you think > > that > > > > you > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > entitled > > > > > > > > > > > > > to privileges beyond the rest of us. Or perhaps you > > have a > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition of equal protection and opportunity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You state: "If it were passed, the Race Privacy > > Initiative > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > ban > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > classification by race. Proud about being Hispanic? > > Black? > > > > > > Asian?" > > > > > > > > Who > > > > > > > > > > > > > said anyone had to stop having pride in their race? > > The > > > > issue > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > > > one race should have any advantage over another? > > Here's a > > > > > > novel > > > > > > > > > > concept > > > > > > > > > > > > > you may not be entirely prepared for Emil: How about > > some > > > > > > pride in > > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > > > > an American? Or did I offend you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your next quote leaves out an important fact: "But > > race > > > > > > > > information is > > > > > > > > > > > > > more helpful than not. A short time ago, your humble > > > > columnist > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > stopped by a police officer for speeding. After the > > > > standard > > > > > > > > ticketing > > > > > > > > > > > > > process, the officer asked me about my race." So you > > were > > > > > > pulled > > > > > > > > over > > > > > > > > > > > > > because of racial profiling, or were you asked this > > > > question > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > > this happens to be a required check box on the > > official > > > > ticket > > > > > > > > used by > > > > > > > > > > > > > the officer to process the incident? A check box that > > will > > > > go > > > > > > away > > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > > > > RPI passes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Little wonder, then, that researchers and policy > > analysts > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > > > > > among those most critical of the initiative so far." > > > > Really? > > > > > > Who > > > > > > > > > > > > > specifically are these researchers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The best quote though is: "Ah, color blindness. What a > > > > > > wonderful > > > > > > > > world > > > > > > > > > > > > > it would be, filled with ignorance and invisibility, > > two > > > > > > essential > > > > > > > > > > > > > ingredients for racism. That's the ultimate outcome of > > > > > > Connerly's > > > > > > > > > > > > > deceptive vision." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me ask you this after reading your multicultural > > > > screed. > > > > > > Did > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > aspire to and qualify for your job at the newspaper, > > based > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > substantiated proof of your journalistic talent, or > > > > because of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > paper's requirement to fill your spot based upon a > > quota > > > > for > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > Asian-American writer? If you can answer that question > > > > > > honestly, > > > > > > > > > > you'll > > > > > > > > > > > > > have revealed either an incredible bias in favor of > > skin > > > > color > > > > > > > > over > > > > > > > > > > > > > merit, or discovery of a completely false premise that > > > > applies > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > everyone else but yourself. Which one is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like your preoccupation with identity is more > > > > important > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > > commitment to equality.

I'm checking out the poll and the poll archives and the results are sweet at 8PM CST. That can't be the SF Chronicle. Is it the FR Chronicle? Check it out!