On Oct 8, 2:49*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 10/08/11 05:09 pm, RicodJour wrote:

The thing is absurd from the get go, with
a few plausible items thrown in for believability (free education for
all). So why did you buy into it?

Make that free education for all, including illegal aliens, with a heavy
bias towards ANY minority to the exclusion of legal citizen students who
actually test higher.

What was the name of the med student who got bumped and had high scores?
Banke?

I think it might have been Baake. And he wasn't bumped in favor of an
illegal alien. (However, I am not particularly in favor of these quotas
for minorities -- unless it's a tie on other grounds.)









I don't know. *But you do know that the "list of demands" is a bunch
of bull**** from some anonymous poster, right? *So why do you bring it
up?

Sorry, you were the one who posted it. *Do try to keep up.

And I knew their demands were bull**** days ago. *What took you so long?

Sigh. *They _have_ no demands. *The list itself is the bull****. *But
it fits in with your preconceived notions, so it must be true - eh?

However it does bring up an interesting question. *There is no such
thing as "free" education, of course, yet all children are required to
go to school. *And we pay for it. *Why? *People without children pay
for it. *Why?

Because "we" (I am writing as though I were a US citizen, whereas in
fact I have a "Green Card") are a nation, a community, and we assume
responsibility for each other: we spread the benefits and we spread the
costs. We assume that education is necessary for all, so we all pay for
it -- even those of us who have no children. We assume that libraries
are a benefit to the community, so we all pay for it -- even those of us
who never read a book. We assume that roads are a benefit to the
community, so part of our taxes go to pay for their construction and
upkeep -- even those of us who do not drive a car or ride a bicycle.

It's "E pluribus unum" not "E pluribus plures."

Perce

PC-

California really didn't have much of an illegal alien situation in
the 70's.

Bakke got rejected when "his spot" was given to a minority candidate
or so he his suit claimed.
He was solid candidate in his day & we (all the white college males)
we're pretty unhappy about his rejection
and concerned about the future of professions where "less qualified
applicants" were admitted.

His rejection may have been the spark that created the term "reverse
discrimination"

Here's a pretty reasonable history of affirmative action, which didn't
really get rolling (widespread) until the late 60's / early 70's.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affir...#ixzz1aEMeouRK

"From the outset, affirmative action was envisioned as a temporary
remedy that would end once there was a "level playing field" for all
Americans."

but I guess it didn't quite work out that way.....

cheers
Bob