I see the point, and I know very well from long experience that it's nearly impossible to have a rational, serious debate about affirmative action. But I am trying. I am trying to make this blog a place where we can do that.
IN THE COMMENTS: Sloanasaurus said:
The problem with this subject is that most people from the conservative side who have jobs should be advised not to touch it. All it takes is a misconstrued post or a false accusation of racism and your career is finished.I agree, but as a person of tenure, I'd be pathetic if I did not take that risk here.
Posts
78 comments:
Alinsky. How original. That's deep for Instahack though.
garage - you would know a lot about being a hack. A paid one probably.
What rational debate? Affirmative action is pure evil and should be done away with now. I don't want any further debate. It's like arguing whether the gas chambers in Auschwitz should still be operating in 1945.
...it's nearly impossible to have a rational, serious debate about affirmative action.
And that's different from taxes, health care, social security, immigration, trade, or any other policy issue in what way, exactly?
Professor Goldrick-Rab, who made the "whitest white boy" comment, has a Phd in Sociology from Upenn and is probably scared to death that jobs like hers [diversity worship in education or some such bull] are destined for the scrap heap of history.
She must be joking when she names her blog "Education Optimist" yet she is just a run of the mill, overweight race hustler like Rev. Sharpton.
Althouse:
"The on campus event was admirable. It was huge and people behaved extremely well."
One requirement of rationality is that there be a common frame of facts among people arguing over ideas. That means not asking us to chose between your absurd statement that the students at that debate conducted themselves admirably, and our lyin' eyes.
They were rude, uncivil, hyper-emotional, and stupid, and only admirable in the same sense that a battered spouse would express when saying, pathetically, "Thanks for not beating me."
The tried and true tactic of calling your opponents pigfuckers, and making them deny it. And when they do call you out on it, scream like little girls and play the victim. Pretty much modern conservatism in a capsule.
Garage - how doe it feel to be a pigfucker?
If you are going to do the time might as well do the crime. The republicans ought to abolish affirmative action and repeal motor voter act and the civil rights act.
As for voting if you are a US citizen and have full possession of your civil rights that is all the qualification needed to vote.
As for affirmative action the sooner it goes the better. Its corrosive to those who 'benefit' from it and promotes precisely what it is intended to combat. If half of the Ivy Leagues admissions turn out to be chinks so be it if they are the most qualified. The rest will have to wake up and work harder.
Rational debate is a leftard ruse. Don't fall for it.
Clarence Thomas has answered this one. He said his Yale Law credential is crap! Because they'd have given him one, even if he didn't produce any work.
Clarence Thomas is an example of a man the Affirmative Action crowd doesn't want!
But his scholarship is there!
Debating this on TV?
Why not just make it the GONG show. Those who leap up first and bang the GONG get the credential.
In today's business enviroment ... people who have jobs don't want to lose them.
Some people paper over their lack of credential.
When they submit resumes ... full of experience ... THEY ALSO KNOW THE NETWORK! They know who has pull. And, who can get them ensconced, elsewhere.
Maybe, the bragging of a "credential" comes when men show up at parties wearing school ties. Or wearing a class ring they bought at a pawn shoo. Who'd know?
College drops behind you as you keep having birthdays ... like a booster rocket that long ago dropped off your ass.
In academia, meanwhile, all the energies go to arguing over your parking space.
Riding a bike to campus must drive the administrators nuts.
And, having gained tenure ... protects you from the worst of the marketplace fallouts.
Besides. Kids today want to graduate in 4 years OR LESS!
You'd have to go back 40 years ... to find the 32 year olds hanging out at the student union.
While those 3 old geezers, yesterday, hanging out with the white bedsheet, haven't seen their student years in decades. (They also didn't bring any crowds.)
You probably have more bank robbers in America than "alinsky-lites."
By affirmative action do you mean racial quotas, giving preference to minorities even if they are less qualified, or making an extra effort to find minority students/workers who are qualified but may not find out about the education/employment option that you are offering through traditional means?
yup racial quotas are pure evil and corrosive to society. Also womyn quotas have to be done away with as well. Womyn are bitchy enough in the kitchen.
Remember woman - your place is in the kitchen. You are there to serve your husband and raise his children to the highest standard. June Cleaver is your role model.
I love how garage's new avatar is a republican.
There's hope yet.
Alinsky plays to the modern soap opera audience.
Ratings rule, so the tastes of soap opera now edit everything.
But this also gives rise to zingers.
Alex said...
And your problem with June is? Smart, capable woman who ran the the house (and Ward). Looks like an equal division of labor. A real partnership. Unfortunately with the tax load and economic competition we have today June would also have to be in the workforce so the family would have enough to eat. Ward now would be pulling his weight in the domestic affairs side as well.
Mary Beth no one would be upset if universities went the extra mile to find equally qualified minorities. Its the handicapping that pisses people off.
The problem with this subject is that most people from the conservative side who have jobs should be advised not to touch it. All it takes is a misconstrued post or a false accusation of racism and your career is finished.
We The People shall follow the will of the founding fathers and promote those who display the greatest enthusiasm for the National Anthem.
Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? The situation today would indicate that an affirmative action program should be confined to class background rather than racial or gender considerations Generally students from middle and upper class backgrounds have had opportunities not experienced by students from the lower classes. BUT, it should not be sink or swim. Rather much more effort (based on empirical evidence) should be spent on the years before high school graduation.
I don't think anyone objects to "making an extra effort to find minority students/workers who are qualified but may not find out about the education/employment option that you are offering through traditional means?", but it's a crap strawman. Anyone who is qualified to get into a top-tier law school has already written the LSAT and completed an undergraduate degree, so of course they know what their law school options are - if they didn't, they wouldn't have written the bloody LSAT. No matter how you spin it AA or social promotion or whatever you want to call it always comes down to quotas, even if they aren't in writing.
It's really quite perverse - instead of fixing the lousy schools that produce unqualified minority candidates, we choose to further short-change these kids by pushing them along, regardless of whether they have the training and aptitude to succeed.
The tried and true tactic of calling your opponents racists, and making them deny it. And when they do call you out on it, scream like little girls and play the victim. Pretty much modern liberalism in a capsule.
FIFY
Your complete lack of self-awareness makes this commenting stuff too easy. Really, is this the best you can bring?
It's strictly a rhetorical question, BTW.
I love how garage's new avatar is a republican.
There's hope yet.
He left the Republican party and became a Progressive. Our current governor's assault on La Follette's open and democratic government principles is a crime against the universe.
"But I am trying."
And I can tell you're finding it frustrating because so few are cooperating with that.
I think that a serious debate could be had about affirmative action; about the good intentions, unintended consequences, and constitutionality of it. But I don't know what there really is to debate.
As I understand it, AA was intended to correct a systemic injustice, to give people in Historically oppressed populations access to higher education so that they could go back to those communities and provide role models and an additional boost. I think that a retrospective of the decisions to enact this policy has quite a bit of room for debate. (As well as the consequences and advisability of viewing individuals primarily as members of a set group.)
The unintended consequence of AA, of course, is that there can no longer be an assumption of merit. A good example is the appointment of the Obama women. We wonder (but not much) if Dunn was unqualified and appointed as a representative of her vagina. We don't wonder that about Condi Rice. It's rude to label Obama himself an affirmative action hire, but disallowing the language won't make the problem go away.
(That Obama also has a dismal record appointing competent men could be a convincing argument against Dunn's vagina.)
The constitutionality is probably not as clear cut as it would seem since our government can and does legally violate the constitution. But as I understand it, the burden of proof is high and rests on the government to prove that the need is dire and other, constitutional, remedies are not possible.
It seems to me that in general terms, most of the time, the only thing people want to debate is the very first thing... is/was racial discrimination real. And then everything else is supposed to just automatically follow.
Which is why the "debate" is typified by people like that professor in Madison who began with "debate with a racist." There is only one question that matters and only one conclusion possible and only one solution. Anyone who questions any part of that can only do so because he or she is a racist.
How does someone debate that? Wishing that it could be seriously debated is irrelevant.
I know very well from long experience that it's nearly impossible to have a rational, serious debate about affirmative action. But I am trying. I am trying to make this blog a place where we can do that.
At least part of the problem is, no matter how well-intended, affirmative action is a fundamentally wrong-headed concept. The idea of discriminating on the basis of race in order to end discriminating on the basis of race is nonsensical. Add to that it punishes achievement and rewards mediocrity, or in some cases rewards even less than mediocrity. It may not be a complete nonstarter, but it's getting pretty close.
...a crime against the universe
And still people ask why there's no possibility of rational debate.
"The tried and true tactic of calling your opponents racists, and making them deny it."
Fixed that for you.
It is hard to have a rational debate, and part of the reason is the charge of racism gets thrown at people who feel AA is flawed.
I believe that's why so many were unhappy with Althouse's dismissal of the "whitest white boy" comment made by Professor Goldrick-Rab.
Fixed that for you.
I didn't call anyone a racist. If you have a beef, and think you have the chops, go and debate Sara Goldrick-Rab on her blog.
Its no wonder that most of us won't post under our own names - god help those who speak their mind and get pilloried for it...
He left the Republican party and became a Progressive.
I highly doubt that that had happened yet when that photo was taken.
Your avatar is Republican. :)
garage has called everyone who disagrees with him a racist like a bazillion times. Down the memory hole again?
Anyone who is qualified to get into a top-tier law school has already written the LSAT and completed an undergraduate degree, so of course they know what their law school options are - if they didn't, they wouldn't have written the bloody LSAT.
So then we aren't discussing affirmative action in general, just as it applies to the situation that led to this post? I read this request for a serious debate as something that was inspired by what is going on at the University of Wisconsin-Madison but not limited to that.
You can have "a rational, serious debate about affirmative action".
You just can't have any Leftists in it.
And the Alinsky dodge only worked when Conservatives were more concerned with being ladies and gentlemen (mostly RINOs) rather than winning.
As Robert Rogers taught us, once you know how the bad guys fight, you can beat 'em.
WV "hymori" What the cast and crew of The Dick Van Dyke Show said to Mr Amsterdam every day.
Our current governor's assault on La Follette's open and democratic government principles is a crime against the universe.
Gosh, Garage, even I'm old enough to remember when teachers, professors, and other state employees really were comparatively underpaid. Then, beginning around 10 years or so, the lagging salaries and benefits began to catch up, while those in the private sectors declined. Now we have such embarassing disparity that the employee unions refuse to admit it--[shame?]
I told you months and months ago that the Wisconsin Employee Union leadership should have recognized this and actually conceded benefits (without conceding bargaining rights). That would have decisively won public opinion. Your response at the time was "they weren't greedy--they didn't ask for more" (paraphrasing).
La Follette loathed greed in any form. It's hard to second guess how he would have viewed today's mess.
"I didn't call anyone a racist."
And no one here called anyone a pigfucker until you used the word.
You made a general accusation against "conservatives in a capsule" and I (and a few others) fixed it to "liberalism in a capsule."
At what point was it ever about you?
"If you have a beef, and think you have the chops, go and debate Sara Goldrick-Rab on her blog."
Do I have the chops to debate Sara Goldrick-Rab?
I think that quite possibly she is far smarter than her speech impediment would indicate.
The thing (I'm discovering quickly now that I'm a student at UNM) is that people who spend their entire lives in a comfortable, ideologically homogeneous, environment lose the ability to think before they spew. So they spew idiotic or even racist bile and never even notice they did it.
I highly doubt that that had happened yet when that photo was taken.
It would have to have been taken before sometime in the early to mid 1890s. Or, around 40 yrs of age, when most people are grown up and should be joining the reality based community.
Whatever garage. You've recently begun to challenge people here on their knowledge of Madison as a basis for dismissing their opinions on other matters.
Just calling you on that one.
...the reality based community.
Just wondering: Was there ever a time when you posted something original here?
Could you at least bother to acquire some fresh talking points during your daily download from Kos?
The trouble with affirmative action is that it produces idiots, not that it denies other people opportunity.
My college long ago admitted one in ten applications, and was at the top academically.
Then it turned left.
Today one in ten accepts their acceptance, and it's populated entirely by morons.
La Follette loathed greed in any form. It's hard to second guess how he would have viewed today's mess.
Everything he stood for is antithetical to Republicanism in this state. And you should know that.
I don't think all AA is wrong, but I do think it should be returned to it's original purpose:
To help American blacks.
Not hispanics, or women, or anyone else who wants to claim minority status, but those who could conceivably be considered the descendants of American slavery.
And, for goodness sakes, stop using it to kick white men. That shit is not only wrong but disgusting.
BTW - as usual, I think Pogo's Alinsky quote is spot-on.
If you get rid of Affirmative Action you would have to deal with the fact that public schools are failing Black and Hispanic students. As long as you keep affirmative action around it serves a dual purpose for Dems.
First purpose is it keeps two of your key voting blocks ignorant and bereft of skills and makes them dependent on the government for help that only you promise to give them. That way you can keep failing in your horrible inner city public schools and use that failure to ask for more money.
Second now you have a captive voting block with inferior training and skills that will only get a job or get into college with affirmative action that your opponents want to do away with.
There is a reason it was Democrats who fought against repeal of the Jim Crow laws and why it was a Republican that finally enforced them. It is why the KKK when it was actually a political force supported democrats. There is a racist party out there that is intent on using the government to subjugate Blacks and Hispanics.
"I told you months and months ago that the Wisconsin Employee Union leadership should have recognized this and actually conceded benefits (without conceding bargaining rights)"
It was at that point that AFSCME Council 24 (the largest state employee union), along with the state teachers union and other labor leaders said they would be willing to trade the concessions if Walker would drop the limits on collective bargaining.
Linkage
If you get rid of Affirmative Action you would have to deal with the fact that public schools are failing Black and Hispanic students.
That's it.
Dealing with AA quotas means you've got to try to explain why, after 40 years of AA policy, it still needs to exist. And how a group gets chosen to be on the receiving end of the quotas. Why doesn't the 'not Asians but Hispanics' part of AA set off huge alarm bells that AA exists now because there is a huge underlying failure somewhere? And it isn't in the supposed racist nature of white people.
Chip S. said...
...it's nearly impossible to have a rational, serious debate about affirmative action.
And that's different from taxes, health care, social security, immigration, trade, or any other policy issue in what way, exactly?
As Althouse noted, there can be career adverse consequences to railing against AA in the workplace and in the public if knowledge of your "less than progressive rejection of blessed diversity, possibly racism" becomes known to certain employers.
The other subjects do not come with similar risk, so a person can be far more open in America in discussing them.
And we all sort of know the other taboo or semi-taboo discussion areas that could cost a job, a spot in a university (a fool who puts on their Wisconsin law school app they interned for the Tea Party vs. interned for the august NAACP or worked with a community organizer.....interned with an oil company vs. an environmental activist group).
The off-limits discussion areas politicians and media people strive to avoid at just about any cost that go against the party line or identification politics of the media bosses.
Perhaps immigration and controlling the borders discussions would be on a "dangerous to reveal certain beliefs" list. Social security used to be untouchable..
"Person of tenure" -- that's funny. And sly.
As I said in the other thread, Linda Chavez has attempted for many years to have a rational debate about affirmative action, as has Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, the Steele twins, and many others.
It doesn't work, Professor, and you aren't the person who can make it work. Sorry.
Am I the only one who thinks the only reason the one conference was peaceful was because the other served as a stalking horse?
I'm not saying the simultaneous scheduling was done intentionally, but it would be pretty smart if it were.
On the one hand the anti-discrimination faction gets its message out and on the other they get to show dramatic footage of pro-affirmative action activists being violent and disruptive.
They get to have their cake and eat it too.
Saul Alinsky call your office ...
"Shouting Thomas" has a telling comment (under the previous post) that affirmative action seems to be "about who gets the swag" -- it's just "a fight over the spoils."
Example: This weekend at Harvard Law there's been a huge celebration
of affirmative action by hundreds of black alumni whose academic records, statistics show, were dismal compared with non-black students:
harvardlawcaveman.wordpress.com
-- Joe White
...as a person of tenure, I'd be pathetic if I did not take that risk here
Tenure gives you license for what was once a right.
garage's favorite movie quote - "Yeah, that's right, or we'll tie you to a tree, fuck you in the ass while we jerk you off. Show you what we really do to perverts around here."
Meanwhile, back here in the backwater bog, you, Republican or Democrat, can sit down for food and refreshemnt at any local restaurant without having some punk, whiter than white Wisconsinite leftie (or anyone else) pouring a beer over your head.
Discussion is impossible when the very subjects are sanctified.
To announce doubt in the supremacy of AA, feminism, global warming, socialist economics, multiculturalism, and the host of gods on the left is to be identified as unclean, a sinner, evil.
All debate centers around this fact.There is no god but the leftist god. All must submit.
So I play the odious Alinsky game, and make them play by their own rules.
There will be no real discussion for a generation or two. Not until this religion is marginalized.
"....I know very well from long experience that it's nearly impossible to have a rational, serious debate about affirmative action. But I am trying. I am trying to make this blog a place where we can do that."
And I apologize for failing to recognize that effort, so despairing am I of any such hope.
Prior to my meteoric rise to the very apex of the lower middle class, I spent most of my childhood and youth as a member of the lumpenproleteriat. I was very good at taking standardized tests (and very little else) and won a scholarship to an expensive prep school. Most of the kids there came from well off families. I could compete with them scholastically, but in other fields I was completely lame. I suppose guys like Reagan and Clinton can pull it off, but it is very difficult for a poor kid to have social confidence in such a setting. There's nothing like family wealth to give one a sense of belonging and social ease. See, for example, FDR and Rockefeller. Anyway, I felt more resentful than grateful for the chance to attend such a school and was very happy to get out of there alive.....I have always tried to be just like everyone else. I'm white and could sort of blend in, but I was like the deaf person at the dance. I was always looking out of the corner of my eye at the other dancers and being a step behind and clumsy. Affirmative action can have a lot of negative consequences.....The world has an irregular surface and only a microscopic portion of it can be made into a level playing field. Family wealth and connections, good schools, and hard work can all come to nothing. See the Mondale and Kennedy daughters. The ferocity with which we try to level the playing field is equal to the anger that we feel at having to play in a rigged game.
"All it takes is a misconstrued post or a false accusation of racism and your career is finished."
For many, but as Althouse notes, not the tenured (although tenure is not nearly as ironclad as most people think). I also am tenured. I try very hard not to get into political, social, or other issues not germane to the class (usually either general chemistry or biochemistry). I think I succeed. Out of the thousands of students I've taught, none have ever complained to me or the university about any comments I've made in class.
However, I think it is very wrong to use tenure as a shield against charges of racism. IANAL, but I recall a thread on Volokh a year or two ago wherein the issue of whether calling into question someone's bias or lack thereof was raised. As I recall it, there was precedent for considering unfounded charges against someone such as a professor (whose impartiality in grading must be above reproach) to be a tort. The idea was that the very act of questioning their lack of bias damaged their reputation, and reputation for a professor is real and of value. I'm not sure how the court system would put a dollar amount on that value (and there's a whole sordid story about what a "colleague" of mine did to me that rested on that issue), but I have resolved to never (again) blow off false charges against me on the basis of having tenure. Accuse me and you'd better have evidence that will stand the scrutiny in a court of law.
Realizing of course that if Althouse (having such a high profile) had the same attitude, she'd be in court a lot.
@William...your comments were very bittersweet...I had no problem picturing you there, looking for the paddle that was lost and stranded you in the backwaters of elite higher education.
It seems as though the DNA is moving toward polarization of those that cannot get over finding out the exact data you've provided on the wordly size of even playing fields, and those that face the same data, are able to enjoy the game for the games sake and live to play another day...knowing full well the odds are against them.
White Boy: (noun, black urban slang) – A quaint, descriptive phrase often used in a joking manner, especially by academics. It refers to a male child less than 18 years of age of one of the many Caucasian ethnic groups.
Examples of some light hearted banter*:
“Motherf*ckin’ White Boy. I’ll kick your scrawny white ass.”
“What you White Boys doing with a black dog?”
“Hey, White Boy, I’m gonna slap the white off you.”
“Kick his ass! Everyone knows White Boys can’t fight.”
*Unfortunately, I didn’t appreciate the humor at the time. I didn’t stick around for the *ahem* punch lines.
So your career is better off if you say that people with darker skin are incapable of competing against people with lighter skin?
Wow, maybe the country really is racist!
The affirmative action argument reminds me of the "Black people can't be expected to figure out how to get ID, so voter ID is racist" argument.
Must be some very exquisitely nuanced non-racism there.
If you wanted actual affirmative action, wouldn't you just give people K-12 vouchers?
Affirmative action as it stands now seems to consist of, "Yeah, we didn't have time to fix all that failing school bullshit. We're married to unions and top-heavy administrations. So now that we've failed you for 13 years, here's a special admission to a school that we didn't bother to prepare you for. Good luck!"
Not that any of this really matters. At all schools nearly all students have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. The same can be said of a great number of professors. If you let a guy into this academic society who isn't up to par, big deal.
A professor I greatly respect recently told a friend of mine that he's come to hate teaching because the students are no longer interesting; they're hoop jumping morons. (Those aren't his exact words, but mine, which come partially from a columnist, are more interesting. The main idea is identical.)
You know the real downside?
Good students, in high school, are looking at this ... and pulling Madison off their list!
This doesn't improve next year's admissions one iota.
The next thing to remember ... is that 50% of ALL freshman admitted to college ... oftentimes go over the cliff! Instead of doing well ... because they got to the top in high school ... They find college a BUMMER.
It has nothing to do with black and white!
This is a statistic. As each year's news graduates are gonna be finding it tougher and tougher to get jobs.
If the "process" means you're getting kids into the classrooms who do not function well? Leave it to the first two exams ... for the professors, themselves, to "clear out the underbrush."
In a few weeks you'll see the empty seats.
Carol - it just means the U of Madison is headed into a non-stop downward spiral to oblivion. Serves those pigfuckers right.
I agree that the politics of AA greatly chills speech by those who have qualms about it. But isn't that mostly the case when the critic is either white or black? If white, the critic can be called racist; if black, the critic can be called an "Uncle Tom."
Can't criticism of AA be best conducted by asians or Latinos?
It seems that affirmative action tends to disproportinately disadvantage asians (who of course weren't responsible for American slavery), and there's evidence that some colleges cap the admission of asians, just as some capped admission of jews decades ago.
And at least some Hispanics are already advocating against victim-group politics, like Juan Rangel, the subject of a WSJ piece over the weekend:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576574924254753238.html
Mark Kantrowitz adds a bit of rational discussion to this topic with his report that notes: White students receive more than three-quarters (76 percent) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62 percent) of the student population...
From one perspective that white students receive a higher percentage of merit-based aid than their percentage of the student pool doesn't seem morally objectionable as long as the aid is calculated based on neutral criteria, e.g., grades and test scores.
But I still find this surprising. Isn't a key rationale for AA the need to have "diversity" in the student body? Whether that SHOULD be a criteria for admission is a contested issue, especially to the degree that "diversity" is a code word for being black or Latino. But as long as a "diversity" admissions system is in place, why should so-called "merit-based" aid be focused only on grades and test scores? Shouldn't a student who adds diversity "merit" the same aid as a student who brings high grades or test scores?
Frankly, I'm surprised by such data because I assumed that colleges compete aggressively for minority students by offering lucrative aid packages -- indeed, it wouldn't have surprised me if "diversity" applicants were getting better offers than non-minority applicants with good numbers. I disagree with the whole agenda, but if people are serious about "diversity" admissions, shouldn't they put their money where their mouth is?
One caveat: it may be that "diversity" applicants are offered lucrative aid packages on a financial aid basis, so that the data about merit scholarships are largely irrelevant.
White students receive more than three-quarters (76 percent) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62 percent) of the student population...
This speaks to the achievement level of white students entering universities, does it not?
Is the argument that merit-based scholarships discriminate based on race?
@roesch-v: Your definition of "rational" appears to be nonstandard, but the argument you cite is delightfully subversive, demonstrating simply and clearly the fallacy that underlies affirmative action.
So, overall a really nice link. Thanks.
Chip, I cited this because it shows the exaggerated claims made for how diversity has pushed out "white students,' which is clearly not the case. While we discuss the grade points of minorities, I wonder if we can also ask if admission policies have helped increase the size of the middle class of minorities? Do the white students who were rejected from UW on the first round, reapply after a year for two in one of the other state schools, is the middle class in general shrinking because of admission policies or because of other structural forces such a out-sourcing, deregulation, general lowering of wages, loss of manufacturing jobs etc.
Chip, I cited this because it shows the exaggerated claims made for how diversity has pushed out "white students,' which is clearly not the case.
No it doesn't. It provides data that white students are exceptionally well qualified compared to other races.
garage mahal said...
The tried and true tactic of calling your opponents pigfuckers, and making them deny it.
I never fucked your mother. You on the other hand...
It's almost gotten to the point where you see a certain person at a job and you automatically question if they are qualified for it.
That is what affirmative action has done. People are judged by the color of their skin rather than their character. Long past time to remove official stigmatization.
Post a Comment