[Vision2020] Isn't This Racist?
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Sun, 06 Apr 2003 23:20:18 -0700
Dale,
Does anybody even know how many American or British soldiers were killed?
Does anyone know many Iraqi Soldiers were killed? Does anyone know how many
Iraqi civilians were killed? How can we when it is changing ever minute?
I can tell you, more Iraqi civilians have died or been wounded then any
other classification in the last 20 days and considering that there are only
23 million Iraqis in a world of 6.1 billion, I would say that the vast
majority of deaths were innocent minorities. All other 1,000 deaths in the
war in the Congo were minorities too. Compare that to the number of white
Americans that have died in the last 20 days and I doubt you will find it to
be of statistical significance.
Let's just all pray that everyone gets home safely and the wars stop soon so
everyone stops dying regardless of race.
Donovan Arnold
>From: "Dale Courtney" <dale@courtneys.us>
>To: "'vision2020'" <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Isn't This Racist?
>Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 22:25:50 -0700
>
>Ms. Huskey. You said that "a rich mix of non-whites in the frontlines of
>combat."
>
>Can you tell me what the death rate has been for minorities on the front
>line?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com] On
>Behalf Of Melynda Huskey
>Sent: Sunday, 06 April, 2003 21:04
>To: Dale Courtney; vision2020
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't This Racist?
>
>
>Dale Courtney suspects that I'd be either surprised or in denial if I knew
>what the demographics of the U.S. Armed Forces are. I'm not sure why he
>thinks so, but in the interests of extending the boundaries of knowledge, I
>took a quick look at "Population Representation in the Military Service
>Fiscal Year 2002," a darned compelling little read by the Department of
>Defense.
>
>Blacks represent 20% of total enlisted personnel (approximately 6% more
>than
>their representation in the general population)--23% in the Army, and less
>in other branches. They also represent 8% of active duty officers.
>
>Latinos are under-represented in all branches of the services as enlisted
>personnel, except in the Marine Corps, where they have reached parity with
>the general population.
>
>"Other," which includes multi-racial, Asian, Native American, and Pacific
>Islanders, are slightly over-represented in enlisted populations.
>
>16% of all officers are non-white across all branches of the service.
>
>I didn't bother to get the details on the drastic under-representation of
>women in all branches at all levels . . . but you can find it for yourself
>very easily by googling the title of the report.
>
> Not exactly reeling with the shock of it all,
>
>Melynda Huskey
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dale Courtney
>Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 6:09 PM
>To: 'vision2020'
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Isn't This Racist?
>
>Ms. Huskey,
>
>Would you care to provide the statistical breakdown of ethnic minorities in
>the military? Then the ethnic breakdown of those who have been killed so
>far?
>
>I think you'd be surprised, or in denial.
>
>Best,
>Dale
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com] On
>Behalf Of Melynda Huskey
>Sent: Saturday, 05 April, 2003 22:44
>To: John Harrell; vision2020
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Isn't This Racist?
>
>
>Dear John,
>
>I shouldn't bother, but the information you quote below is only part of the
>story. Points-based admissions systems like Michigan's also award points
>for being the child of alumni (at historically white schools, of course,
>these points go most often to whites), for geographic diversity, for being
>a
>first-generation college student, for coming from a less-represented area
>of
>the state (in Michigan, that's the Upper Peninsula), for having specialized
>athletic ability, for being a veteran, and for all kinds of other things
>that provide a good mix of students. At some schools--although not, I
>believe, at Michigan--students who don't need financial aid receive
>separate
>consideration . . . a form of affirmative action for the wealthy.
>
>Diversity at its finest, it seems, is a rich mix of non-whites in the
>frontlines of combat, but not in the front rows of college classrooms.
>
>Melynda Huskey
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: John Harrell
>Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 7:09 PM
>To: vision2020
>Subject: [Vision2020] Isn't This Racist?
>
>{see below for article and URL.. I thought this article was interesting}
>
>Excerpt:
>
> The facts in the Michigan undergraduate case are easily understood:
>
> On a 150-point admissions scale, an applicant gets points for various
> achievements: three points for an outstanding essay, 12 points for a
> perfect SAT score, 80 points for a 4.0 grade-point average--and 20
>points
> for being black, Hispanic or American Indian. White or Asian students
>with
>
> lower than a 950 SAT score are automatically rejected; but if you are
>black,
> Hispanic or Indian the rejection score is less than 850.
>
> And if race-based preferences are constitutional in university
>admissions,
>
> may there be race-based preferences in other areas--for job
>applications,
> juror selection or the election of state legislators?
>
>
> >From Bad to Diverse - The Supreme Court debates whether the 14th
>Amendment
>means what it
>says
>
>WSJ ^ | April 4, 2003 | PETE DU PONT
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110003289
>
>Is racial discrimination in the selection of applicants to attend colleges
>and law
>schools acceptable--and constitutional--if its purpose is
>to achieve diversity in the student body?
>
>That was the question argued before the Supreme Court Tuesday. The
>University of Michigan
>says yes, the social goal of diversity is
>paramount. The qualified students rejected because of their race say no,
>such procedures
>violate their rights under the 14th
>Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws," and Title VI of
>the 1964
>Civil Rights Act, which makes discrimination
>"on the ground of race, color, or national origin" illegal for any
>institution receiving
>federal funds.
>
>The facts in the Michigan undergraduate case are easily understood: On a
>150-point
>admissions scale, an applicant gets points for
>various achievements: three points for an outstanding essay, 12 points for
>a
>perfect SAT
>score, 80 points for a 4.0 grade-point
>average--and 20 points for being black, Hispanic or American Indian. White
>or Asian
>students with lower than a 950 SAT score are
>automatically rejected; but if you are black, Hispanic or Indian the
>rejection score is
>less than 850. The law-school preference program
>is different but practices the same race-based discrimination in favor of
>certain
>minority applicants.
>
>There is an old law school adage: When you have the law on your side, argue
>the law; when
>you have the facts, argue the facts; and
>when you have neither the law nor the facts, pound on the table and scream
>like hell.
>There was a polite bit of the latter in the
>courtroom on Tuesday.
>
>Maureen Mahoney, arguing the law school's case, said that of the "2,500
>students who are
>rejected each year, probably only 80 of
>them . . . would have gotten an offer of admission from Michigan under a
>race-blind
>system." That, she concluded, "is a very small
>and diffuse burden" relative to the benefits of the racial preference
>program.
>
>To which Justice Antonin Scalia replied: "I don't know any other area where
>we . . .
>decide the case by saying, well, there are very
>few people being treated unconstitutionally."
>
>In the undergraduate case, there is a two-track admissions system, one for
>selected
>minorities, and the other for everyone else.
>Solicitor General Theodore Olson, weighing in on the plaintiffs' side,
>noted
>that "the
>University of Michigan admissions program has
>created a separate path and a separate door for preferred minorities. . . .
>If they meet
>basic qualifications, their path is always clear and
>their door is always open. . . . Nonpreferred groups face rigorous
>competition to get
>through the other door."
>
>Indeed, the university's lawyer, when pressed to identify a single
>minimally
>qualified
>minority member who got the 20-point racial
>bonus and was rejected for admission, admitted, "I can't give you one."
>
>All of which leads to deeper questions. If there are to be race-based
>preferences, who
>gets to pick the minorities that get the
>preference? In the 1978 Bakke case, which involved University of California
>medical
>students, Asian-Americans were included in the
>preference class; at Michigan they are not. The 14th Amendment would not
>seem to give
>state university admissions officials the
>power to make such decisions, but that is what Michigan demands.
>
>And if race-based preferences are constitutional in university admissions,
>may there be
>race-based preferences in other areas--for job
>applications, juror selection or the election of state legislators?
>
>{..snip.. see URL for complete article..}
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
>http://tax.yahoo.com
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
>
>
> _____
>
>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
><http://explorer.msn.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail