See, now you have confused affirmative action with the absence of standards we have today. Follow the chain of events, affirmative action was the race based applications process and quotas implemented in the 70s and 80s, but that was kicked to the curb by society and the supreme court because it was discriminatory (in Paul speak, it was racist). It was over that period of time that the persons in charge of managing our colleges got tired of having their discrimination thwarted, gave up on affirmative action and switched to a policy of simply removing the barriers (academic standards) to college. So you see, the lack of academic standards we see today (it is ridiculous to call them minimum standards as I will explain later) is not affirmative action.
You are also confused on another point. You think I am blaming affirmative action for the disaster we see today. This is incorrect. I only state that the disaster we see today started with affirmative action. For example, when I say that the automobile started with the invention of the wheel, I don't mean that the wheel is some sort of automobile. I mean that the people and the processes involved with the invention the wheel went on to invent the chariot and then the carriage and then the automobile.
Similarly, the group of people in charge of managing our colleges decided to implement affirmative action and when their first attempt was deemed unconstitutional they tried again, and again, and again. Over a period of time that process eventually resulted in them removing the academic barriers altogether. It is these people and their decision making that I blame for the disaster we have today. What were they thinking? Just like we blame the banks for the housing crisis. They and they alone were in charge of managing the mortgage process. And what were they thinking?
Also, you alluded to the crazy notion that I somehow blame the beneficiaries of these policies. I think you mean the beneficiaries of affirmative action but as I have just explained the beneficiaries now are not of any particular race, just unqualified. By unqualified I mean that when they graduate they can't compete for a job capable of paying back their student loans. And thus, they are not even beneficiaries, they are victims. Very much like the unqualified home buyer. As the banks removed the barriers to home ownership for various and nafarious reasons, the unqualified home buyer was now able to get a loan. They just couldn't pay it back. I blame the unqualified home buyer for not knowing how much house they could afford but I blame the banks more because they were in charge of the process and should have known better. But how are we to blame college students for not knowing that they are being lied to and conned into a trap? Most of them aren't even adults.
I heard a rumor that the banks got into a lot of trouble over that practice of putting unqualified buyers into loans they couldn't afford, especially with minorities. They called it predatory lending or something like that. You watch.
On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> Likewise, the practice of having different sets of rules depending on skin color became (after some griping) nasty and unacceptable. Affirmative action, with its race based rules and quotas looked like a throwback to the 50's and 60's. The practice didn't sit well with society or the supreme court and under that pressure the colleges began to lower the standards wholesale for everyone to lessen the appearance of color based discrimination. >> > > The idea that affirmative action is color based discrimination or > different sets of rules depending on skin color is a racist falsity. > Affirmative action is merely the idea that a proportionate amount of > minorities that meet the minimum standards should be allowed "in the > room" with the whites who meet the minimum standards. > > Without something that is statistics-based like affirmative action, it > is utterly impossible to meaningfully enforce anti-discrimination > laws, and therefore its absence will pretty much give the green light > to all those closet (or otherwise) bigots who control the entrance to > "the room", meaning they will deny entrance to more and more qualified > non-whites, and their good old days of not having to see non-whites > "in the room" will come closer and closer to again becoming a reality.