Replies

"He is saying the manner in which the University of Michigan, by giving students 20 points on the basis of the color of their skin..."

Anyone with an ounce of fairness in their being could never agree to the University of Michigan's blatant discrimination. Effectively, this school is TAKING 20 POINTS AWAY FROM NON MINORITY STUDENTS!!! Let's call it like it is, folks.

Think about it. The EXACT SAME RESULT is achieved if 20 points is taken AWAY from non minority students. Ask yourself why they pad the minority scores rather than take points away from students who aren't the "right" skin color. I find it shocking and amazing that conservatives haven't banned together to use these facts as talking points!!! It bears repeating by everyone who sees the injustice.

Rice: "I believe that while race-neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as ONE factor among others in achieving a diverse student body."

Your point is right on, demkicker. Just as GIVING 20 points to favored minorities is logically and morally equivalent to TAKING AWAY 20 points from non-minorities, so are racial "preferences" for minorities the same as racial "penalties" for non-minorities. It's all in the language. No doubt a majority of the sheeple would respond favorably to a poll asking "Should disadvantaged minorities be given preference in admissions?" Contrast that with the likely response to a poll asking "Should non-minorities be penalized in admissions?"

Similarly, the Rice quote, above, may sound relatively innocuous by considering race as "only" ONE factor; what it really means, though, is considering race a PLUS factor for minorities and, conversely, a MINUS factor for non-minorities. This shows the absurdity, analytically and ethically of Rice's position. As provost at Stanford, she rationalized faculty discrimination by claiming it was legitimate to give racial preferences in hiring junior faculty, while not considering race in tenure decisions. That initial hiring process obviously prevented more qualified applicants from ever even getting a shot at tenure -- a point either ignored by or lost on Rice.

This excerpt from the Post article reveals the real reason for Rice's tortured "reasoning" on affirmative discrimination:

"Stanford released minutes from a 1998 faculty senate meeting in which Rice was quoted as saying that she was 'a beneficiary of a Stanford strategy that took affirmative action seriously,' pointing to her arrival at Stanford in 1981 as a fellow in the arms control and disarmament program."

Translation: Rice, with her Ph.D. from the University of Denver, was a "two-fer" (black female) affirmative-discriminationwise, for Stanford when she was hired over more qualified applicants in 1981. Take a wild guess about how many U. of Denver non-minority Ph.D.s got hired by Stanford back when Rice got her first job. Rice no doubt is still trying to defend that with her contorted explanations to justify discrimination, as long as race is "only" one [PLUS] factor for favored minorities.