[Vision2020] Isn't This Racist?
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:31:59 -0700
Tom,
Those are just the American Casulties, what about the others?
Donovan Arnold
>From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com>
>Reply-To: <thansen@moscow.com>
>To: "Dale Courtney" <dale@courtneys.us>, "'vision2020'"
><vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Isn't This Racist?
>Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 06:28:17 -0700
>
>MessageGreetings Visionaires -
>
>There is a statistical breakdown of the 58,178 casualties of the Vietnam
>War
>at:
>
>http://thewall-usa.com/stats/index.html
>
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow, Idaho
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]On
>Behalf Of Dale Courtney
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 10:26 PM
> To: 'vision2020'
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Isn't This Racist?
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
>http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus