We need to keep pummeling them, until they see their hypocrisies, as

[The Backlash Cometh]

easily as we can see them.

Before the right-wing begins to regroup by turning the critical media eye on the Democrats, we need to get the upper hand and use this time to point out to them how this country lost face because of their insulated beliefs. We need to show them that they were duped and until they face that, they will continue to be tools of the right.

The soul searching has already begun among some of them, but they will need our help and support to continue the necessary self-analysis. For example, in my hometown, a right-wing evangelical refused to take leadership of the Christian Coalition because he was not allowed to put issues like, helping the poor, on the agenda. Some feared they would be viewed as too liberal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2628018

What I'd like to see is a continual ferreting of views that will undermine us if we don't face them now. There are a lot of urban legions developing out there, and we have nothing to combat them with because they're based on anecdotal evidence. Among the white young men that I have had a chance to speak to, I have noticed a trend. They don't want to be a part of the Democratic party because they believe that the Democrats give too many concessions to minorities. Everyone of them came up with one anecdotal story to prove their point. One person said that someone didn't get into college as a white applicant, but then remembered her grandfather was hispanic, so she changed her ethnic group and reapplied, and got in. Another talked about how a talented black athlete did all kinds of criminal things, and was still able to stay in school on scholarship.

These stories are hard to fight without knowing all the facts, but they are sinking into their subconscious. I know this, however, every white male that I've talked to that has a bitter story to tell, wasn't exactly a good student in high school. They fluffed it off, partied more than my children ever did. It was only when the college application time came that they realized they would have to compete for a limited number of spots. Suddenly, they're becoming critics of the Affirmative Action system, when they fully know that, however, bright they are, they never were good students. And now that they're in college, it's getting worse. Now they're coming home wanting to be libertarians, because no one can tell them what to do.

I know I'm going to get criticized for saying this, but, these are bright kids who were slackers in school. They're looking for shortcuts to success and the lack of regulation is appealing to them. If they didn't develop good study habits when they were young, I can't imagine that learning regulations when they're adults is something they're going to want to do. Instead of finding fault within themselves, they want to blame their failures on everything else, and Affirmative Action is a big target for them.

I think it's time for those of us who have benefited from AA to come out and tell honestly the sacrifices we made to become worthy of that opportunity. The fact that many of us closed ourselves off to social frivolities, just to get more time to focus on the grades, because we always knew we were being judged. And don't say that the heat we received was due to the opportunity we were given, because we would never have been accepted socially, anyways. At least with the college education, we have a chance to break the stereo-types, even if that responsibility is overwhelming sometimes.

Someone needs to tell the white kids in America what we who lived overseas know first hand. Overseas, education is fiercely reinforced by the parents. There is no such thing as putting a kid down for being too nerdy or too geeky. Parents dote over their kids and are proud of great grades. In the US, if a kid has a great report card, he keeps it from his friends because he's afraid of being criticized for it. There's something wrong with this. American parents need help to turn this around. By the time the kid gets to college and they discover their mediocre grades give them few options, it's too late. There are some very bright kids out there who start looking for easy ways to success, and they soon find the fuzzy edges where someone can make a quick buck, but at the expense of the public.

Okay, fire away. I'm wearing asbestos lined underwear this morning.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. I'm shamelessly self-promoting.

I believe this is the core of disagreement for Democrats who support AA, and those who don't. Avoidance helps no one. Roll up your sleeves and let's do some serious debate, otherwise, we'll just be reacting to the symptoms of our differences, and never get down to bridging them to find common ground.

[Hardrada]

2. I agree with the part of lack of parental involvement.

We see this all the time but maybe part can be blamed on the US economy where both parents have to work to raise a family.

[KSU Wildcat]

3. The economy has been this way

for many years. Back in the 1950s my mother and father both worked.

[hfojvt]

31. that's not true on the social level

the following table compares participation rates for mothers between 1955 and 1990 with children under 18, 6 to 17 or under 6. Since families are now smaller, this would be even more pronounced. For example, my mom had a child under 6 from 1960 until 1976. My sister only from 1991 until 1999, half as long.

******** <18 ****6 to 17 ** <6
1955 ---- 27.0 ---38.4 ---18.2
1990 ---- 66.7 ---74.7 ---58.2

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. It's EXACTLY the problem. Parents should have more flex time to

spend with there kids. I don't work and I'm a stay at home mom who has been heavily involved with raising the kids. Never in a million years did I think I was not going back into the workforce, but I got sick due to the medication given to me by an HMO doctor and I never bounced back. I look back and realize it was divine intervention. I, personally, could not have done as good a job at raising my kids if I had been holding down a job too.

Keep in mind that there was a lot of low-self-esteem issues with staying at home, and still is, but there's no doubt that my kids have benefitted from my staying here and getting involved in all aspects of their life. Also, I've been with them through everything, and it's easier for me to let go. I know I've done everything I could do. The rest is up to them.

[bagrman]

28. Parent can't take more time with kids, their "wage slaves" paying for all the crap.

Latr

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Hey, I'm white

but the only reason I got to go to university was a scholarship. What I saw when I was there was a lot of rich kids who played away their time, which I thought was a pity. Their places would have been better taken by someone who appreciated the opportunity and worked hard for it. I saw lots of folks like that, too (of all colors), and counted myself amongst their ranks. Didn't party but came out with high honors.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. I think this is how we turn it around.

College is not for partying. It's to prepare yourself to go out into the workforce. If all you can think about is that keg on the weekend, you're not there for the right reason, and you shouldn't resent someone who is willing to make the sacrifices.

[BeFree]

32. Zero Tolerance?

Sounds like we should institute Zero Tolerance for partying while in college? Really, not a bad idea, eh?

Let colleges be for those who really want to improve themselves and learn, and put the partiers in their proper place.

Some may say that the whole idea is anti-freedom but if the government is gonna financially support colleges then we should grant government the right to limit who gets in and who gets out.

[blm]

5. I completely agree with your assessment.

I had a mother who hated schooling as a tool of the devil and my youngest brother took full advantage of it - he was honored as an athlete only and not one bit of concern was given to his education.

He ended up taking on many of her skewed views and would blame ANYONE else for his failures in the real world other than his lack of education or his mother's scorn of education.


I must say your post is certainly unexpected but I do understand the reality you want to face with it - truth and candor is a great disinfectant for every problem in this country.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Thanks!

[Jackpine Radical]

6. OK, OK...

Victimhood is fashionable and convenient. Why take responsibility for your own inadequacies when you can blame it all on being a member of a victim class? The cute thing is how the privileged classes in this country have discovered that they, too, are victims. Victims of reverse discrimination. Victims of laws that don't let them inflict their childish religious prejudices on others. Victims of the poor, whom they now believe to be a privileged class. Rush Limbaugh has done his job. All these fundamentalists running around with little fish emblems on their cars--little secret signs by which they can recognize each other without tipping off the Secular Humanists who are persecuting them. Them there Secular Humanists have even declared war on Christmas. War on Christmas--same thing as war on God!! Send yer money to Don Wildmon so he can beat back the incursions of Satan! Jump on the bandwagon, force MallWart to call it Christmas, not the Holiday Season. Beware, beware, the savage Homasekshuls are coming for your kids, preying on them like werewolves. One taste of that there sodomy stuff and they'll be lost forever.

The fact of the matter is that among the hard-core conservatives, the belief structures are nothing but fancy trappings over pathologies of personality. Read John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" to see what I mean. Modern conservatives are actually authoritarian personalities. The personality traits they display at age 5 are predictive of the opinions they will hold at age 40. You don't convert these people with rational argument--even if there were a way to bring those arguments to them, given the corporate media. You have to do it by changing childrearing practices. You have to make fundamental changes in the cultural ethos.

This is not meant to say that what you propose, i.e. pointing out the bad things conservatism has led us into, is wrong or futile. It needs to be done. The large numbers of ideologically uncommitted people in the country need to hear those things. But again you aren't fighting mere bad habits of thought or incorrect ideas. You are fighting active forces of perversity who are committed to maintaining their twisted cognitive and emotional orientations because those stances are profitable and productive of power for them.

So I guess I summarize my perspective by saying that the root problem is worse than you think, and the solution must reach deeper into the collective psyche.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. What do authoritarian types do, once the world can see right through

them? I shudder to think about it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Thanks for the kick, I would have missed it.

This is a straw man.

If you were making the case that students (regardless of ethnicity) who have better grades and are thus better equipped to succeed in college should have that opportunity instead of their slacker peers, regardless of their economic background or the fact that they benefit from legacy enrollment, then I agree. Most everyone does.

That doesn't appear to be the case you're making. Your argument appears to be "It's time for those of us who have benefitted from affirmative action to stand up and say what a good idea it was because it let me in and kept the underachiever whites out."

There are people everywhere who face unreasonable barriers to higher education. Those barriers are not addressed through selective intervention on an ethnic basis. The better intervention is improving financial supports for poor students, but that costs money.

Affirmative action has made a target of itself. Its actual implementation is discriminatory, and it's popular perception causes harm to the ethnic groups it is meant to protect.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Well, we obviously disagree.

I'm saying slacker whites, even the ones that had all the advantages of life, think they are entitled to the college experience. They perceive Affirmative Action as hindering them from an experience they're entitled to, despite their poor grades. Instead of seeing where they might have come up short, they all can come up with one white person they know by six degrees that had better grades, but who could not get in. Do you see? It's not about where they went wrong, it's about a perception that whites that are not in support of AA have fostered.

And why do we need it? Because you will never accept us, and it is time you admit it because we already know it. Trying to fit into your comfort zones is an impossibility. We cannot do it without doing major self-triage on the parts that you find most offensive. And that's the part that makes us different.

Now, I'll strike up this conversation again tonight, because my appointment calls.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Are AA proponents incapable of talking about it without calling me a racist?

I do accept you. Discussions are pointless when 90% of the conversation is consumed rebutting your assertions about what other people think. Stick with what you know - what you think. I'll tell you what I think.

I don't accept that government can effectively promote anyone's acceptance (whatever your ethnic background, the exact nature of which I consider irrelevant) by enforcing a situation in which anyone's race is an objective criteria in preferentially allocating finite educational opportunities.

I'm saying slacker whites, even the ones that had all the advantages of life, think they are entitled to the college experience.

All encompassing generalities and racial stereotypes ill-befit this topic.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. Where did I call you a racist?

However, it would be safe to presume that if I'm in a room full of Anglo-Americans that refuse to believe that minorities are faced with obstacles created by white prejudice, then yes, I will eventually conclude they are racist.

The Democratically controlled government and the liberals in the 60s, have been our only allies. The proof is in the pudding. In this case in particular, actions are more important to me than words. The reality is that we will never be allowed to develop self-esteem if the goal is for us to become Anglo-Americans. We are not and will never be. Yet, there are Anglo-Americans in this country, specifically conservative Republicans, who believe that accepting their Anglo icons and their dominance is the only way that they will accept us. It is just not a feasible goal for us. Part of what they fear most, is that we will not honor their, "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine," culture. I'm certainly not going to tell you it doesn't exist in the black culture or in the hispanic culture. It does. But I am telling you that maybe it's harder to create these crony networks when you're crossing ethnic groups, and maybe you should realize that wouldn't be a bad thing for America right now.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Then what did you mean by: "you'll never accept us"?

Aside from the fairly clear implication, 'never' is a very long time. Is affirmative action a mechanism to get people back on a level playing field or a perpetual, multigenerational intervention?

You are not in a room, nor in a discussion, with anyone who "refuses to believe that minorities are faced with obstacles" created by racism. I absolutely agree with this.

What I don't agree with is the premise that this predjudice can best be combatted with an offsetting, reactive kind of opposing racial predjudice. Further, I think that the cultural manifestations of racism, such as the crony networks that you allude to, are promulgated by arbitrary government treatment.

If the government is going to intervene on behalf of one group, why wouldn't crony networks justify their actions on behalf of the other group(s)?

I am a product of the racism my ancestors faced as are you. Granted, there's a qualitative, quantitative, and temporal difference. However, history suggests that the primary thing required for healing in this society is time.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. "allude" to crony groups? ALLUDE?

If you aren't convinced about the existence of crony groups in this country, then maybe that's where the disconnect exists between us. Those crony groups have been around long before Civil Rights and Affirmative Action. Those crony groups will never go away. I've lived abroad and saw how they existed in a foreign country, and was very dismayed to see them alive and well here. Most people who have seen the downfall of the Bush Administration, had no problem understanding that his rise to power and fall of this country was all based on cronyistic favoritism.

You'll never be able to do away with Affirmative Action unless you can provide a better solution to what causes inequities in this country. And you aren't going to convince anyone that you're even trying without putting an end to the crony groups. It's just not going to happen.

And I hate to tell you, but white Americans have resisted minorities before Affirmative Action came about, they resist them now, and they will resist them after it's gone. That will never change. The Republicans always complained when it came to shrinking government. Remember? Big whiny babies. I think the fact that they do whine so much is because they want to be the dominant force and they can't believe that they can't be in control all the time. This is good for them. It will help build character. Competition is always good in a capitalist country, remember?

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. I think you're confusing "allude" with "allege"

allude=refer

There are crony groups in this country. You can't legislate them away, so the next best thing you can do is to minimize the conditions which cause them to thrive.

There are few things that are more reliable to cause inequities in a given society than intentionally creating arbitrary structural inequities.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Legislate them away? We could do away with them if we did exactly

what we did when Reagan declared war on drugs. We could start with a corruption agency that went deep down to the local level and cleaned out our chamber of commerce and Rotary clubs. Cut their ties and influence on local and state government. And we could do away with crony groups by taking the power away from the Bar Associations from regulating their own.

It's unbelievable to me that you think you can do away with Affirmative Action and that things will just get better. For whom? What a laugh. You think that white people are going to suddenly play nice with blacks and hispanics once AA is gone? HA! The next thing they'll do, once the number of hispanics and blacks without college degrees increases in this country, is to justify the increase on their genetic pool.

WE DON'T TRUST YOU TO BE HONEST BROKERS. Get it? You can grumble now, while there is AA, or you can deal with the civil rioting after it's gone. Makes no difference to me.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. We'll root them out just like we did the drug users? Remind me, how did that work out?

It's the rotarians fault? Do you really believe that?

Who's "we"? Who's "you"?

Unless I miss my guess, we're both US citizens, and the government belongs to us equally. If your expectation is that a government that takes sides on the basis of ethnicity will be perceived as just by the other group, you're naive. That's unbelievable.

Outlawing discrimination WILL make things better. Replacing one kind of discrimination with another will not.

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. Excuse me? Take a look at the ethnic breakdown of your Congress.

Until January, it's primarily Republican. So, no, this government does not belong to me. And once the Democrats take power, the right-wing faction of your party is going to try to take over and minority rights are out the window as well. Your government has been taking sides, to your betterment, not ours. AA is just a remedy for all the shenanigans you people have been playing behind the scenes.

You'll have a fight on your hands until whites face the same sentencing in prison, and until we have blacks and hispanics properly represented in Congress. Until then, don't call it OUR government. The only time I ever felt my opinions mattered in this country was when AA came about. Take that away, and we are completely powerless to offset the countless unfair advantages that you all have and we have to pay for.

Outlawing discrimination my Aunt Patootie. You know what is all too common? Northerners who think they're so enlightened about racial issues come down to retire in the South, and instead of enlightening their Southern bretheren, they become just like them. Doctor, heal thyself.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Discussing race with anyone who uses "you people" so freely is counterproductive.

I sympathize with the racial barriers that you've faced. I'm distressed that your solution is to erect barriers for others.

If you (as a minority) are not part of government, yet AA exists, to whom do you owe gratitude? What purpose does AA serve in the vast rotarian conspiracy?

Clearly, to some degree the interests of minorities are represented. In my view, AA shows that those interests are poorly represented, motivated by guilt, not progress and equality.

Disproportionate sentencing is a legitimate concern, and I consider it a victory when progressive minorities are elected. Working for these things do not require AA, and in fact I suggest they are hindered by it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. Barriers for others? You will not recognize the barriers that you all

(that's right) have erected for us or you would understand the importance of AA. You don't sympathize at all. You have a very technical mind that can't see the human aspect here. That's my opinion, if I'm allowed to have one.

You say that you consider it a victory when progressive minorities are elected, but I guess, that's not a real stretch. Like Lieberman voting for a progressive bill because he knows it is not going to pass in the Senate anyways. Looks good on paper, but no real harm done.

Saying that you support progressive minorities really isn't stretching your neck out because you know that's a near impossibility that they will ever swarm the Senate. Progressives haven't been getting elected in large numbers, and the minorities who do get elected have to be as conservative as the Ford guy. Lots of nice words, but no powder, no kick. If progressive minorities did win in numbers, you'd probably find something else to whine about them.

You must get comfortable with being labeled into a group, because we all are, whether we like it or not. It's not what we want in life, but how we are perceived. It's not my preference, but who's listening to me, anyways? And "You people" was a nice choice, compared to the things I've heard spoken about my culture. I do have a background in Sociology, and the first thing you do to understand a group, is to label it. But I welcome you to describe yourself further, if you like. I find my life is less burdened the more I avoid insincere people. I can't change you, and you can't change me so our lives would be best apart. That's why I stopped debating right-wingers on the open internet and came to a place where I could find people who shared my views.

I know the barriers that stop minorities from getting ahead, and it is ludicrous to suggest taking away the only weapon we have to fight them. Why don't you commit first and show a sign of good faith by taking down those barriers that hinder us and benefit you? Then maybe we'll disarm. I've told you what it would take to make the playing field even, and you haven't really given it any thought, no commitment.

Who do I owe my thanks to? I owe my thanks to the progressive Democrats of the 60s. Liberals who thought to put the programs in place decades ago. People who really understood Christian values and knew how to reach out to people in need. I owe my thanks to them for creating a world that promised better things even if it didn't turn out quite as well as we hoped, because in that period of time that they ruled, I was a child and at least the hope for the future they offered didn't dampen my dreams as a youth. I feel bad for the children of today, of all races, for we all have failed them.

No, Mr. Lumberjack, with AA or without, you all will still have your prejudices hindering us from getting ahead. Talking to you is like the story of the scorpion who asks to be carried across the river and promising not to bite. But bite you will, because, in the end, loyalty to one's race or culture is what we do when the water rises.

[porphyrian]

12. We need to end the culture of meritless entitlement.

I think that's the irony of the white kids you mention - they seem upset that someone else received preferential treatment over them when there is no reason they should have been chosen instead. Fucking reaganite social programming.

[treestar]

19. I have a relative who always complained he could not get on

the police force due to his unfortunate white maleness - both the minorities and the women had this advantage over him, he always asserted.

And it does seem he was passed over time and time again (he finally made it). But then other white men did get on, so one can't really say if he didn't make the grade due to the fact he just didn't make it, and wouldn't have without AA, or that if he was a white male who would have made it before AA but can't due to it, he is at the bottom of qualified white males anyway.

It is a tough call, though I think in the case of police and teachers, that AA is preferable to pure meritocracy (taking into account that the whites have an advantage in the meritocracy, the likely reason they would otherwise come out on top, or the fact of the testing and other factors just favoring them) - the kids/community out there need to see black or hispanic cops, so they don't have this sense of whitey just policing them and the white kids to see that people in authority are of all races - I remember the cops out front of Parker Center at the beginning of the riots in LA, all standing together, black and white and everything else.

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. The problem is that everything is subjective.

People who select employees will select people that make them feel most comfortable, and that generally means people that look like them, and who share their cultural perspective. If you're communicating well with someone who shared a similar upbringing, you'll tend to overlook their failings and promote them when they do well. On the other hand, I know of a law firm who sabotaged the work of a Puerto Rican who had only been working for them a few weeks, just to get rid of him. You think that guy ever knew what hit him? And all the whites in the firm knew what was being done to him. What kind of message does that send to whites?

[Cronus Protagonist]

25. The problem is that people talk about "them" when, objectively, "they" are merely projections

You're projecting your shadow, in a Jungian sense, on myriad people. Surely your ego is not that large. To talk of several demographics as "they" and to presume you know what "they" are thinking, intending and doing is to do battle with your own projections. You might as well be playing chess with a chimp.

An any case, this is off topic. Carry on. It's quite entertaining. I just thought I'd interject my own nickel's worth to say, take a chill pill and you'll feel better and have more spare time.

:evilgrin:

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. I love off-tangent threads.

Free association is not a bad thing unless you have a serious short attention span problem.

Yes. I love seeing how the white culture jumps every time they find themselves getting labeled into a group. You see, you all have been doing it to us for years. My favorite anecdote involved an Arthur Ashe tennis match. Mr. Ashe was playing against...a white guy. My very close friend from college, a white guy, is a very good tennis player and he would watch the games all the time. I didn't particularly care for tennis, and I was a bit bored with it, so I picked up on something he said and I began to toy with him. I had come into the room and asked who was playing. He named the white guy by name (I don't even remember who he was, but we'll just say Bill Dunlop for the sake of the story) and he called Mr. Ashe, the black guy. So, I proceeded to ask questions throughout the game. like, "Who won the point?," "Who's ahead?," "Which one has 'Love?';" And you know, everytime, EVERYTIME, my friend called Bill Dunlop by name, and Mr. Ashe, he called "the black guy." Everytime.

So, to open up your awareness, tell me, does it bother you to be treated like you treat us? He didn't like it either, because I intentionally started referring to Bill Dunlop as the white guy, and also called Mr. Ashe, the black guy, but every time I called Mr. Dunlop "the white guy," my friend would flinch. Do you have any idea why he would have finally protested about it? I just haven't a clue.

This was many decades ago. I think you all are getting the point.

[treestar]

29. True, though among whites you can get favoritism - just plain nepotism

Are you old enough to remember All in the Family or the Jeffersons? George Jefferson was a successful black businessman and one he dealt with a question like that in reverse - should he lay off a white person who'd been with him longer. Then on one of the All in the Family's, Archie Bunker's son was up against a black guy for a position and being the ultimate liberal, had to deal with the consequences of what he would have supported maybe coming down onto himself.

All of these areas where subjectivity can come into play raise these questions - is it pure racism or partly racism or may even something entirely different? Which is why sports is such a good thing to point at - it is much harder or even impossible to fix things to favor somebody - playing the game, you just have to play the best to win.

[The Backlash Cometh]

36. Don't underestimate the reach of racism.

About that sport example, my little redneck blonde adopted daughter told me that in football they'll pick the black player over the white player even if the white player is better. I was flabergasted. I told her that there is no Affirmative Action in sports and no sports owner would select a player that might lose him millions of dollars in revenue.

[BeFree]

34. You do know, don't you...

that what you are suggesting is that in light of all men being created equal, there should be Liberty and Justice for all?

Now where have I heard that before?

[benEzra]

30. Regarding the concept of "nerds" and "geeks"...

Someone needs to tell the white kids in America what we who lived overseas know first hand. Overseas, education is fiercely reinforced by the parents. There is no such thing as putting a kid down for being too nerdy or too geeky. Parents dote over their kids and are proud of great grades. In the US, if a kid has a great report card, he keeps it from his friends because he's afraid of being criticized for it. There's something wrong with this. American parents need help to turn this around. By the time the kid gets to college and they discover their mediocre grades give them few options, it's too late. There are some very bright kids out there who start looking for easy ways to success, and they soon find the fuzzy edges where someone can make a quick buck, but at the expense of the public.

You are EXACTLY right--and it's not just white kids. Nonwhite kids who are gifted academically are often stigmatized as well, though the terms of choice may be different.

I heard Wierd Al's song "White and Nerdy" again recently, and it set me to thinking about this (I'm something of a nerd myself, though not nearly as bad as I used to be). That song points up an interesting question--WHY does American culture look down on education an intelligence like that? There is an odd fascination in American pop culture with the antihero, the jerk, and the jock, and intelligent nice guys are nerds in need of reform.

BTW, I heard an interesting joke once:

Q: What do you call a nerd when he grows up?
A: Boss.

Probably a lot of truth to that. The kids who take academics seriously, and go on to college and do well, will be doing a lot better than the hip kids who get D's and F's because it's cool, and end up working minimum-wage jobs for the rest of their life.

[hfojvt]

35. sure I am doing so much better than John Elway or some jock like that

I still think that if I had been as good at football or basketball as I was at math, that I would have gotten a scholarship.

I'd like to see that tracked sociologically between grades and athletes, because I, personally, have never seen very many rewards for either my good grades, or my college degrees. I have seen alot of people get hired for jobs that were supposed to require degrees. They got the job over people with degrees, on the stipulation that they would work on their degree.

[benEzra]

37. True...but the percentage of high academic achievers who do well later

vs. the percentage of high school athletes who do well later, is vastly different. If you do well in high school and college, you probably have a 75% chance of getting a good job. If you are a jock, you probably have a 0.5% chance of becoming a professional athlete, and the other 99.5% of jocks will end up stuck in low-wage jobs the rest of their lives.

[hfojvt]

38. no, because many of the jocks got college scholarships

and some of the valedictorians can't afford college. As the NCAA ads say, the athletes go pro in some other field. Also I have found that factories love to hire big guys, so athletes can get hired at good-paying factories, which seem to think, against all the evidence, that big guys will do more work than little guys because they are big and strong.

[ItNerd4life]

33. Pummel them?

You mean verbally beat them up?

Or do you mean to question their beliefs and keep asking them questions until they start to question their own beliefs? If you try to force thoughts into people, you will fail miserably. People will only change if they think it is their idea and that they aren't being bullied.

Also, I don't agree that AA is the answer. It's a bandaid to the real problem.
We need to create better schools in poor performing neighborhoods.
We need to create social programs to educate the parents and kids (of all races) on the importance of education.

I believe there are 5 types off education that have to be addressed before we see real change:
Academic
Professional
Financial
Social
Personal

Until we decide we want to create a system that reaches all 5 areas, we will never really solve the core problems.