Can you say this ?

[Bucco]

With all the skirting of the real issues we seem to do on this board, I ran into this from a PBS discussion on Affirmative Action.

" JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Are you saying college admissions should be based on diversity?

ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST: Yeah, I mean, I think lots of factors go into diversity. I think race can be one of them, and I think the Supreme Court so far agrees with that.

MCLAUGHLIN: 67 percent opposed it, 28, you’re in the minority. Only 28 percent are in favor of it.

PAT BUCHANAN: It should be based on excellence, John.

CLIFT: As long as the Supreme Court agrees with me, I’m fine.

BUCHANAN: It should be like the NFL: whoever’s the best player plays, and whoever does best academically should be advanced. What is wrong with that?

MICHELLE BERNARD: Here’s a question I have. One of the things I always say because I think you can measure diversity in a lot of ways, but I think there’s an argument to be said that the greatest Affirmative Action program that there is in the country is being born white. There is a natural assumption when you are applying to institutions of higher education that you are excellent or you are more superb than others.

BUCHANAN: With due respect, whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now."

Read more: Pat Buchanan: 'Whites Are the Only Group That You Can Discriminate Against Legally in America Now' | NewsBusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/08/24/pat-buchanan-whites-are-only-group-you-can-discriminate-against-legal#ixzz2czhjP8nc)

TWO sentences stand out for me and could be the basis for a discussion, but lets keep it about the subject.

First is that college admissions should be based on diversity
which is what Eleanor Clift of NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST contends.

Second is the comment by Pat Buchanan that "..... whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now."



I tend to agree with Buchanan, but need to add that if that is correct, it is totally the result of political pressure and not the result of good thought or ideas. I say that because we spend time and emotions on making sure that education is available to all, and stress the diversity, YET we make very little in the way of efforts to keep kids in school, apply pressure to the family to insure that, and to insure that these young people are prepared for any education.

We simply make knee jerk decisions based on votes.

Please, every time this comes us, the racist charges fly.....I hope that does not happen but have we gone too far in this country down this road and does the fact that we have done that, ironically make the situation worse instead of better. Have we allowed an entire generation or two grow up with a real attitude of thinking they are deserving BECAUSE of the color of his/her skin ?

I have always thought that in our attempt to "do good" or win votes, we have tipped the scale and created our own problems !

[coralway]

Totally agree with Ms. Clift.



Quite honestly, I find Buchanan's "..... whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now" absurd.

[donb9006]

Face it Bucco, we're outnumbered by those who gain from "diversity". Women want diversity and minorities want diversity...it "equalizes" them.

It's why "education", a college degree, is pretty much worthless now. It's so easy to get and with unlimited government funds available, ANYONE can go to school. And, like in many areas, the standards have been lowered so much...as I said, a "degree" is pretty much worthless.

The world is a different place now...we'll have to wait until after the collapse to take over again...be patient.

[kittygilchrist]

In the state of Florida, anyone with a high school diploma or GED is guaranteed admission to any community college. However, access to particular programs are merit based, and I think most colleges have room within that to use carefully construed eligibility criteria that may give credit beyond pure GPA, for leadership, experience in the field and so on.

[buggyone]

This is basically the same topic. If you had a college age son who had excellent grades and an impressive background but was admitted to college and had to pay full tuition - but a mostly illiterate - but excellent - football player got a full scholarship to the same college, how would you feel?

Colleges need diversity but if the only thing between a white student and a minority is race in admitting only one - it is a no-win situation. Otherwise, grades and extra circular activities are what should be used. Be color blind.

[Bucco]

This is basically the same topic. If you had a college age son who had excellent grades and an impressive background but was admitted to college and had to pay full tuition - but a mostly illiterate - but excellent - football player got a full scholarship to the same college, how would you feel?

Colleges need diversity but if the only thing between a white student and a minority is race in admitting only one - it is a no-win situation. Otherwise, grades and extra circular activities are what should be used. Be color blind.

" Otherwise, grades and extra circular activities are what should be used. Be color blind. "

Ok......so you agree with Buchanan....I also. I do not think the football player analogy works. That is mostly about money......but when you put any ethnic group...black, white, hispanic, etc.....to the back of the line BECAUSE OF THAT ALONE....you are misusing the system.

So many on here are simply proving the point I have been trying to say.

You cannot discuss the real issue without this kind of caustic reaction. The hate, etc with no reasoning.

The reasoning, in my opinion, is because we have been programmed NOT to have any opinion on race except that which is POLITICALLY CORRECT. Note in the article that in the polls, most people agree, but in trying to talk about it, well...you see by these posts what the reaction is. They attack the messenger, and call racist. This will never ever solve the problems and they will simply get worse and fester.

I, also think, and have witnessed first hand (first hand meaning I have had personal discussions with parties involved) that this kind of thing affects the attitudes of, at least one generation. In helping an orginization in Tampa, I had the chance to talk for long periods and seriously with many black young men. They, in the great majority, do in fact feel entitled. They have been brought up that way by their parents who recall the Civil Rights movement and they expect to be given things, ie college, because and simply because they are black. They sincerely felt, or feel, that whatever government program there is should be used......let me say that again...SHOULD be used and never by passed. This is how they were brought up. Is this all young black men....of course not.

BUT......if this is the attitude today, imagine the next generation.


Uncomfortable discussion but in my opinion, if not had, this is going to get worse and worse.

None of this applies to all, either white or black or hispanic or whatever, despite some who try always to make it that way, but it is sufficient for us to be aware of.

[Bucco]

In the state of Florida, anyone with a high school diploma or GED is guaranteed admission to any community college. However, access to particular programs are merit based, and I think most colleges have room within that to use carefully construed eligibility criteria that may give credit beyond pure GPA, for leadership, experience in the field and so on.

and the Supreme Court is moving in that direction, but yet you still hear things like some of these posts who want to continue the practice, and my point to be made is that discussing this brings out emotions tied to what we PERCIEVE as politically correct OR correct for our poliltical views.

I still maintain that until we, as a nation, can overcome this strong tie to politics in many issues like this without facing them as what they are.....and what they are not is political pawns.

"The Supreme Court on Monday allowed affirmative action to survive in college admissions but imposed a tough legal standard, ruling that schools must prove there are “no workable race-neutral alternatives” to achieve diversity on campus.

While the ruling was not a sweeping pronouncement on the future of affirmative action, it amounts to a warning to colleges nationwide that the courts will treat race-conscious admissions policies with a high degree of skepticism."

Supreme Court raises bar for affirmative action in college admissions - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/24/19115041-supreme-court-raises-bar-for-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions?lite)


And I still maintain that we have an entire generation raised with either guilt or a sense of entitlement.

[Indydealmaker]

All applications for college and college financing should have a number where the name goes and no address as well. Race and Sex should also be blacked out. (no pun intended)

The transcripts should have the name of the high school blacked out.

This is the only way to insure that there is a level playing field.

Low performance should not upgraded to the same level as superior performance by using any outside criteria, including lowering the standards.

[kittygilchrist]

and the Supreme Court is moving in that direction, but yet you still hear things like some of these posts who want to continue the practice, and my point to be made is that discussing this brings out emotions tied to what we PERCIEVE as politically correct OR correct for our poliltical views.

I still maintain that until we, as a nation, can overcome this strong tie to politics in many issues like this without facing them as what they are.....and what they are not is political pawns.

"The Supreme Court on Monday allowed affirmative action to survive in college admissions but imposed a tough legal standard, ruling that schools must prove there are “no workable race-neutral alternatives” to achieve diversity on campus.

While the ruling was not a sweeping pronouncement on the future of affirmative action, it amounts to a warning to colleges nationwide that the courts will treat race-conscious admissions policies with a high degree of skepticism."

Supreme Court raises bar for affirmative action in college admissions - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/24/19115041-supreme-court-raises-bar-for-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions?lite)


And I still maintain that we have an entire generation raised with either guilt or a sense of entitlement.

well, Bucco. Are you going to run for office or sit there typing? :ho:

[BarryRX]

Perhaps, it would give us a little more clarity if we looked at the question another way. What if we asked the question "have you ever benefited from racism?" I think most of us would very quickly say a resounding NO! But is it true? My grandparents emigrated here from Europe about 100 years ago. I doubt if they would have been allowed to emigrate here if they were black. Remember for how many years we had the "Chinese Exclusion Act" which prohibited any Chinese people from coming here. How about getting an education? Did any of your ancestors benefit from an education that was totally unavailable to black people? Remember, the integration of most schools just happened about 50 years ago. How about getting a job? Did any of your ancestors get a job based on superior education and training that was unavailable to black people? How many black people did any of us work alongside in the 60's? (Military service excepted). So, my point is that in many ways we have all benefited from racism. First in being allowed to come to the land of opportunity when others were not based on the color of their skin. Next in being allowed to pursue an education when others were not based on the color of their skin. Next, in being considered for a job based on the color of their skin. The question is not whether or not affirmative action was EVER needed to correct past injustices. The question we should now be asking is whether or not affirmative action has accomplished its purpose and should now be discarded. What I say next may surprise you, but I believe that with the election of a black President, that affirmative action has done its job and we should now return to a strictly merit based system. But, I will never agree that it wasn't necessary in the first place.

[Golfingnut]

Perhaps, it would give us a little more clarity if we looked at the question another way. What if we asked the question "have you ever benefited from racism?" I think most of us would very quickly say a resounding NO! But is it true? My grandparents emigrated here from Europe about 100 years ago. I doubt if they would have been allowed to emigrate here if they were black. Remember for how many years we had the "Chinese Exclusion Act" which prohibited any Chinese people from coming here. How about getting an education? Did any of your ancestors benefit from an education that was totally unavailable to black people? Remember, the integration of most schools just happened about 50 years ago. How about getting a job? Did any of your ancestors get a job based on superior education and training that was unavailable to black people? How many black people did any of us work alongside in the 60's? (Military service excepted). So, my point is that in many ways we have all benefited from racism. First in being allowed to come to the land of opportunity when others were not based on the color of their skin. Next in being allowed to pursue an education when others were not based on the color of their skin. Next, in being considered for a job based on the color of their skin. The question is not whether or not affirmative action was EVER needed to correct past injustices. The question we should now be asking is whether or not affirmative action has accomplished its purpose and should now be discarded. What I say next may surprise you, but I believe that with the election of a black President, that affirmative action has done its job and we should now return to a strictly merit based system. But, I will never agree that it wasn't necessary in the first place.
I agree with you, but recommend you put on some armor.

[kittygilchrist]

It is human to behave tribally, divine to do otherwise. Who can unconditionally always treat and think of every other with equanimity?

Go Gators, Pats, Cheeseheads, Yankees..for example...
my family, hometown, friends...are more important to me than yours are to me.

[Bucco]

Perhaps, it would give us a little more clarity if we looked at the question another way. What if we asked the question "have you ever benefited from racism?" I think most of us would very quickly say a resounding NO! But is it true? My grandparents emigrated here from Europe about 100 years ago. I doubt if they would have been allowed to emigrate here if they were black. Remember for how many years we had the "Chinese Exclusion Act" which prohibited any Chinese people from coming here. How about getting an education? Did any of your ancestors benefit from an education that was totally unavailable to black people? Remember, the integration of most schools just happened about 50 years ago. How about getting a job? Did any of your ancestors get a job based on superior education and training that was unavailable to black people? How many black people did any of us work alongside in the 60's? (Military service excepted). So, my point is that in many ways we have all benefited from racism. First in being allowed to come to the land of opportunity when others were not based on the color of their skin. Next in being allowed to pursue an education when others were not based on the color of their skin. Next, in being considered for a job based on the color of their skin. The question is not whether or not affirmative action was EVER needed to correct past injustices. The question we should now be asking is whether or not affirmative action has accomplished its purpose and should now be discarded. What I say next may surprise you, but I believe that with the election of a black President, that affirmative action has done its job and we should now return to a strictly merit based system. But, I will never agree that it wasn't necessary in the first place.

I do not at all, EVER, recall one person ever saying it was not necessary. The comments in my original post are a reflection of two things....

First, it validates we no longer need this, but having said that you read those posts having a good sneer and those including Ms. Clift who believe it is still valid.

Second, Mr Buchanan's comments, in my opinion reflect the result of the outlived policy and the over politicizing of not only affirmative action, but many other programs.

You hear folks talk about those feeling entitled....a generation of being enabled sort of leaves you feeling that way.

I do not think I disagree with anything you said, and the comment for you to armor up shows the lack of understanding the point of the conversation.

[Bucco]

well, Bucco. Are you going to run for office or sit there typing? :ho:

Spent my younger days heavily involved in politics. Now...too old and not glib enough :)

[Moderator]

Need to remind all, including the OP, to stay on topic lest the thread be closed for delving too much into political processes. We have already had to delete 7 posts from this thread.

As the OP said about the topic:

First is that college admissions should be based on diversity
which is what Eleanor Clift of NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST contends.

Second is the comment by Pat Buchanan that "..... whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now."

[BarryRX]

I do not at all, EVER, recall one person ever saying it was not necessary. The comments in my original post are a reflection of two things....

First, it validates we no longer need this, but having said that you read those posts having a good sneer and those including Ms. Clift who believe it is still valid.

Second, Mr Buchanan's comments, in my opinion reflect the result of the outlived policy and the over politicizing of not only affirmative action, but many other programs.

You hear folks talk about those feeling entitled....a generation of being enabled sort of leaves you feeling that way.

I do not think I disagree with anything you said, and the comment for you to armor up shows the lack of understanding the point of the conversation.
While I agree with you on certain points, namely that there have been unintended consequences of affirmative action (AA). Those consequences may be a sense of entitlement by those on the receiving end of "AA" or it may also be a sense of shame (do I deserve this job or did I just get it so the diversity numbers look ok to the EEOC). However, the point I was trying to make was to disagree with Pat Buchanan when he says that white people are the only ones it is legal to discriminate against. What I was trying to say, and perhaps said poorly, is that AA has been an effective (if imperfect) tool to try and correct hundreds of years of injustices. That is not the same as discriminating against the Caucasian race, though there is no doubt that individuals have suffered. Now, just because I feel that it has outlived its usefulness does not mean it has. Its just my opinion from how I view the world. I am sure that there are black people out there that still believe we are a racist society. That's just how they see it from the viewpoint of their life experiences. I have not seen anything one way or the other that validates that we still need AA or validates that we don't need it. I just have my opinion, just as you have yours. I think to validate it, we would have to agree on some measurement to gauge it's effectiveness. Perhaps the growth of a black middle class or median income or something else that I am not smart enough to think of.

[Bucco]

While I agree with you on certain points, namely that there have been unintended consequences of affirmative action (AA). Those consequences may be a sense of entitlement by those on the receiving end of "AA" or it may also be a sense of shame (do I deserve this job or did I just get it so the diversity numbers look ok to the EEOC). However, the point I was trying to make was to disagree with Pat Buchanan when he says that white people are the only ones it is legal to discriminate against. What I was trying to say, and perhaps said poorly, is that AA has been an effective (if imperfect) tool to try and correct hundreds of years of injustices. That is not the same as discriminating against the Caucasian race, though there is no doubt that individuals have suffered. Now, just because I feel that it has outlived its usefulness does not mean it has. Its just my opinion from how I view the world. I am sure that there are black people out there that still believe we are a racist society. That's just how they see it from the viewpoint of their life experiences. I have not seen anything one way or the other that validates that we still need AA or validates that we don't need it. I just have my opinion, just as you have yours. I think to validate it, we would have to agree on some measurement to gauge it's effectiveness. Perhaps the growth of a black middle class or median income or something else that I am not smart enough to think of.

We are still not far away from each other.

Buchanan's comment to me was sarcasm.....I do not believe, or at least I dont think, he meant them seriously and to the letter.

I think, and this is based on my minimum exposure that most black people think we live in a racist society...no doubt about that. And maybe they are right...however....

And this is also to please the moderator :) but needed...

The entire point was that as long as race is politicized as it is, and boy is it we will NEVER have a real conversation about race....we find it impossible without getting into politics, etc. I still think as long as we go on like this, white people will feel guilty and blacks will feel wronged and it doesnt matter who is correct.

Maybe I am looking for idealistic things but I know that it will TAKE MUCH TIME.....and the more we play these political games the longer it will take.

Saw Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia with the Mayor of New Orleans yesterday and they have started an organization....and I cannot remember the name....but they both seemed to agree (Nutter is black and New Orleans mayor is white) that FIRST....FIRST stop the violence before even discussing race.

It is tough.....I sill believe politics has insured how long this animosity continues...I sill believe that in my heart.

[bkcunningham1]

Good evening, Bucco. Oh, how I do enjoy your posts and the intelligent discussion that follows. Here: Milton Friedman - Minorities and Government - YouTube

Enjoy.

[Bucco]

Good evening, Bucco. Oh, how I do enjoy your posts and the intelligent discussion that follows. Here: Milton Friedman - Minorities and Government - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg4fxUpRzj8)

Enjoy.

OH BK...thanks for that....I would love to be able to put my thoughts into words as he does.

I would have just added the strict political aspect, although I think he used government close to the same way.

Early in my life, when I was active in politics, I can assure you....and I am sure it is worse now....minorities were voting blocks and nothing more. Those who professed to help were actually just trying to insure their vote.
This is not partisan...both parties....but votes, not help. Surely some got help from the government, but what Friedman points out....it is not helping...it hinders.

Thanks so much and good to "see" you again !

Just to add.....if you REALLY wanted to help minorities, you would not do it with government and politics.\ and today I am frustrated and negative because it has become such a political mantra and in my opinion, most of minorities are now simply being used.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Two things stood out to me in that discussion.

When they were asked the direct question, Clift and Bernard tried to divert the attention away from the question by stating;Yeah, I mean, I think lots of factors go into diversity. and Here’s a question I have. One of the things I always say because I think you can measure diversity in a lot of ways, .

It's as if they know that what they are arguing is wrong and that the vast majority of the American people will disagree with them so instead of defending their position, they try to say that what they are proposing is not racism.

As far a Buchanan's statement about Whites being the only group that can be legally discriminated against, you have to read it very carefully and understand the the most important word is LEGALLY. Of course it's also a good idea if you understand the actual meaning of the word discrimination. One of which is; to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit (Websters)

Discrimination based on race is pretty much illegal in every facet of American life. Does racial discrimination occur? Of course it does, but it is still illegal. Murder is illegal as well yet we have many murders in this country every year. Affirmative action is discrimination based on race and it is used to favor Blacks and Hispanics and against Whites.

Buchanan does miss one point however. For the purposes of affirmative action in college admissions, Asians are, for some supposedly unknown reason (wink, wink), are grouped with whites. So it is legal to discriminate against Whites and Asians in the United States of America but not against any other racial group.

[Easyrider]

Face it Bucco, we're outnumbered by those who gain from "diversity". Women want diversity and minorities want diversity...it "equalizes" them.

It's why "education", a college degree, is pretty much worthless now. It's so easy to get and with unlimited government funds available, ANYONE can go to school. And, like in many areas, the standards have been lowered so much...as I said, a "degree" is pretty much worthless.

The world is a different place now...we'll have to wait until after the collapse to take over again...be patient.

Totally agree and diversity now is expanded to include illegal immigrants, haven't seen much mentioned anywhere on this.

Notre Dame to begin accepting illegal immigrants - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/23/notre-dame-begin-accepting-illegal-immigrants/)

The university also said it “is committed to meeting the full demonstrated financial need for all admitted students.” Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal student aid, but the university’s announcement signals that Notre Dame would make up the difference between the cost and what the student and his or her family can afford.

[buggyone]

Totally agree and diversity now is expanded to include illegal immigrants, haven't seen much mentioned anywhere on this.

Notre Dame to begin accepting illegal immigrants - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/23/notre-dame-begin-accepting-illegal-immigrants/)

The university also said it “is committed to meeting the full demonstrated financial need for all admitted students.” Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal student aid, but the university’s announcement signals that Notre Dame would make up the difference between the cost and what the student and his or her family can afford.

...and what is the problem with this? Notre Dame is a private university. The students will not be receiving federal student aid. Catholics are usually a very liberal group of people.

Children brought to the US when very small and have graduated high school in the US are more American than they are of the foreign country their parent are from. They serve in our armed forces voluntarily. They speak English. Their only "crime" is that their parents brought them to the US without going through proper channels. The children had nothing to do with that.

[CFrance]

...and what is the problem with this? Notre Dame is a private university. The students will not be receiving federal student aid. Catholics are usually a very liberal group of people.

Children brought to the US when very small and have graduated high school in the US are more American than they are of the foreign country their parent are from. They serve in our armed forces voluntarily. They speak English. Their only "crime" is that their parents brought them to the US without going through proper channels. The children had nothing to do with that.

Thank you.

[Easyrider]

...and what is the problem with this? Notre Dame is a private university. The students will not be receiving federal student aid. Catholics are usually a very liberal group of people.

Children brought to the US when very small and have graduated high school in the US are more American than they are of the foreign country their parent are from. They serve in our armed forces voluntarily. They speak English. Their only "crime" is that their parents brought them to the US without going through proper channels. The children had nothing to do with that.



It is incorrect that Notre Dame does not receive federal money. This action also sends the message to reward the illegal deeds of the parents bringing children over the border illegally and ignores the needs of those children legally born here even including those actually born here to undocumented/illegal parents. This would mean they were already born when they were brought over into this country.

If there are no children which are legal citizens remaining, even those born here to illegal parents, that have applied to Notre Dame then maybe it would be appropriate to consider illegal immigrants. The term illegal also covers a bit more than just what you described.

Each year, Notre Dame has an entering class of about 2000 college/university students. For those 2000 seats in its first-year college/university class, Notre Dame receives over 29,000 applications. About 2,100 (8%) of the 29,000 applicants will be admitted, since some people will be accepted at many college/university and will turn down Notre Dame's offer of admission.


What would we say to the already nearly 27,000 legal citizen applicants that were not accepted each year?

No doubt many hundreds rejected were 4.0 students or better with stellar achievements too...



Notre Dame receives over $34 million in stimulus funds
As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the University of Notre Dame received $34.7 million to support 29 different research initiatives. Notre Dame is the single largest recipient of stimulus dollars in St. Joseph County, where funds dispersed totaled just over $150 million.

The majority of the $787 billion distributed as part of the ARRA were intended to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending. However, the portion Notre Dame received was part of $21.5 billion doled out by Congress for research and development spending.

According to Robert J. Bernhard, the university’s vice president of research, stimulus funding has been used in a variety of ways to support research at Notre Dame. “Some of the funds were used to purchase laboratory equipment and some to employ researches, including undergraduate students, graduate students, post doctoral fellows, and research staff,” he stated.

The specific research initiatives the stimulus dollars support vary greatly, not only in terms of the subject matter they focus on, but also in the level of funding they have been allotted. For instance, a nanotechnology research consortium led by Notre Dame received $10 million dollars, while $34,800 was given to study blood coagulation proteins.

The application process for federal funding was competitive, as receipt of ARRA money was not necessarily guaranteed.

“Researchers submitted proposals to various federal agencies, which were then evaluated in a rigorous and independent competitive process to determine the worthiness of the proposals and the funding levels relative to the many other proposals they received from other universities,” said Bernhard. “These have nothing to do with funds that are attached to legislation – sometimes known as earmarks.”

Notre Dame was not the only university in the state of Indiana to benefit from the stimulus package. By comparison, Purdue University was awarded $130.3 million for 198 proposals while Indiana University has received $62.7 million to support 180 proposals, with $16.7 million still expected.

Although job creation is not the primary purpose of the funds which Notre Dame has received thus far, Bernhard said that new employees have been hired by the university as a result of ARRA funding.

“[The stimulus money is] used to fund research, including people and equipment, and to build research infrastructure,” he stated. “Jobs have been created. It’s expected that the infrastructure upgrades will lead to more research, including jobs, and that some of the research will lead to commercial application and more jobs in the future.”

“In our last quarterly report, there had been 90 jobs created,” Bernhard pointed out. “There will be more jobs in the next quarterly report.”

While Bernhard is excited about the research opportunities ARRA support has created at Notre Dame, he said that he is also mindful that stimulus funding is taxpayer money intended to reinvigorate the nation’s fledgling economy.

“We are very aware that ARRA funding is intended to create jobs and build infrastructure,” he said. “We are working diligently to be good stewards of these funds.”

Jonathan Liedl is a matchmaker par excellence. Contact him at jliedl@nd.edu.

Post Published: 03 October 2010



From the American Prospect:

These schools cannot hide behind the façade that they are "private" institutions and can discriminate however they please. They purport to be open to all on an equal opportunity basis, and each of them annually receives tens of millions of dollars in federal funds. In 2008, Notre Dame received $60 million in federal research funds; $20 million more in government grants for tuition; and $265 million in charitable donations for which we taxpayers picked up the tab of about $80 million, by way of tax deductions to the donors.

These universities are subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or ancestry in the admissions decisions of private schools. The 1866 Act -- the first civil-rights statute in the nation's history -- overturned the infamous Dred Scott decision, which had held that U.S. citizenship was inherited from a person's ancestors. The act mandated instead that all persons born in the United States -- "the children of all parentage whatever" -- are U.S. citizens and have an equal right to enter into contracts, including contracts to attend a school, without discrimination based on ancestry or race.

[Easyrider]

Thank you.

From the American Prospect:

These schools cannot hide behind the façade that they are "private" institutions and can discriminate however they please. They purport to be open to all on an equal opportunity basis, and each of them annually receives tens of millions of dollars in federal funds. In 2008, Notre Dame received $60 million in federal research funds; $20 million more in government grants for tuition; and $265 million in charitable donations for which we taxpayers picked up the tab of about $80 million, by way of tax deductions to the donors.

These universities are subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or ancestry in the admissions decisions of private schools. The 1866 Act -- the first civil-rights statute in the nation's history -- overturned the infamous Dred Scott decision, which had held that U.S. citizenship was inherited from a person's ancestors. The act mandated instead that all persons born in the United States -- "the children of all parentage whatever" -- are U.S. citizens and have an equal right to enter into contracts, including contracts to attend a school, without discrimination based on ancestry or race.

[buggyone]

"It is incorrect that Notre Dame does not receive federal money. This action also sends the message to reward the illegal deeds of the parents bringing children over the border illegally and ignores the needs of those children legally born here even including those born here to undocumented/illegal parents."

I stated that these students would not receive federal student aid - not that the university does not receive federal money. You got that one wrong.

As for the next very long sentence of yours, my reply is "you got that one wrong, too."

Look up the word "xenophobe".

[Easyrider]

[QUOTE=buggyone;733369]"It is incorrect that Notre Dame does not receive federal money. This action also sends the message to reward the illegal deeds of the parents bringing children over the border illegally and ignores the needs of those children legally born here even including those born here to undocumented/illegal parents."

I stated that these students would not receive federal student aid - not that the university does not receive federal money. You got that one wrong.

As for the next very long sentence of yours, my reply is "you got that one wrong, too."

Look up the word "xenophobe".




Are we not grasping at straws a little and off the subject a lot. Long sentence and looking up words, really? I have family working in Columbia, South America right now to help the very needy but also very friendly and appreciative people there so that dog don't hunt.

How about those illegals that have overstayed their VISAs? Want them to attend Notre Dame ahead of our own citizens too?

Millions in federal money flows to Notre Dame which equals student aid in one form or another. You say you want to ignore the 27,000 excellent students rejected each year that are legal citizens wanting to attend Notre Dame in favor of an illegal immigrant, right ?

We have to draw the line somewhere and unless they want to admit the 27,000 FIRST, then I say go for it all they want if they choose.

What could possibly place an illegal immigrant ahead of the entire 27,000 students rejected for admission each year? And you say this would not be discrimination to admit an illegal immigrant? No doubt they would have been selected for admission because they were illegal.

Even the children born here to illegal parents would surely object to this since they are legal US citizens and no doubt some have been rejected for admission by Notre Dame.

[TrudyM]

The application process is very complicated and race is only one factor. No two colleges are the same in what they have decided is the best makeup for their school. However you are competing for slots within your own race at some schools. FYI when applying to most of the better colleges especially in the math and science programs, Asian Americans have negative points given in their profile for race because a larger % of Asians apply to college. Most colleges goal is for their population to mirror the population of the country.
I pulled these figures off the net.
In 2010 that would be 63.7% white, 12.2% black, 16.4% Hispanic, and 4.9% Asian and pacific islander. A lot of the Ivy league schools also don't want to take more than one or two from the same high school.
Whites use to make up 85% of college students in the 70's they make up 65% in 2010 aprox same as the % of the nation. Asians make up 6% which is higher than the colleges really want. So if you are Asian you have to have a higher board score and something special to set you apart from your class mates to get in. When my son went he was told as being half Asian he would be considered Asian and that if he wasn't in the top 10% of college applicants he had no chance of getting into a science program as 20% of applicants in the sciences were Asian. I am so glad they looked at the whole person and not just the numbers. He got in because he also had charity work on his list of achievements and was already accomplished in his field.

[Easyrider]

Quote:Originally Posted by buggyone *View Post
...and what is the problem with this? Notre Dame is a private university. The students will not be receiving federal student aid. Catholics are usually a very liberal group of people.

Children brought to the US when very small and have graduated high school in the US are more American than they are of the foreign country their parent are from. They serve in our armed forces voluntarily. They speak English. Their only "crime" is that their parents brought them to the US without going through proper channels. The children had nothing to do with that.






ILLEGAL/UNDOCUMENTED immigrants DO NOT SERVE/ARE NOT ALLOWED in the military, according to the information below..

More Important Facts about Discrimination: Undocumented/Illegal Immigrants Cannot Serve, even so this is totally different from rejecting an American Citizen in favor of an illegal immigrant for a university student slot.

Illegal immigrants are not eligible to join any branch of service. However, non citizen legal immigrants can join but are limited to rolls as non-commissioned officers. Non citizens who serve, are eligible for a fast track to naturalization (the process to become US citizens).

If an illegal immigrant is serving in the US Military they are doing so with a stolen identity or another method of fraud.

This is incorrect and misleading. The USA military will allow immigrants with a green card or visa to join the military and get fast tracked to citizenship .

The key words here are: visa and green card. An illegal does not have visas or green cards that is why they are called illegals.

Only an immigrant that is legal (with visa) can get fast tracked.






August 26, 2013

:click:
Undocumented Immigrants Push For Military Service Under Deferred Action (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/immigrants-military-deferred-action_n_2553726.html)

Undocumented Immigrants Push For Military Service Under Deferred Action
Posted: 01/25/2013 6:29 pm EST | Updated: 01/26/2013 10:50 am EST

GET NEWSLETTERS: HUFF POST
SUBSCRIBE
FOLLOW: Video, DREAM Act, Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals, Latino Politics, Daca, Deferred Action, Deferred Action Military, Dream Act Coalition, Dreamers, Dreamers Military, Illegal Immigrants, Immigrants Military, Let Us Serve, Obama Deferred Action, Undocumented Immigrants, Undocumented Immigrants Military, Politics News


WASHINGTON -- A group of young undocumented immigrants ramped up a push this week for the ability to join the military, with about 20 visiting recruiting offices on Thursday to ask about enlistment.

Undocumented immigrants are barred from enlisting. But these young people all came to the United States as children and are now trying to gain legal status. Under a recent directive called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals they are allowed to work -- now they want President Barack Obama to allow that work to be in the military.

The first groups visited recruiting offices in New York and Hanford, Calif., on Thursday, and others will do the same in other cities in the coming weeks, organized by advocacy groups Dream Action Coalition and Let Us Serve.

"For myself, I live in New York City and after 9/11, it was very personal for me," said César Vargas, 28, executive director of the Dream Action Coalition and one of the undocumented immigrants who visited the New York recruiting office. "For me, it was really about serving my country and to really send a message to a lot of people who oppose the Dream Act or immigration, for them to see who we are, that we are as American as they are."

The Obama administration announced its deferred action program last June and has now accepted more than 150,000 undocumented young people. Eligibility for the policy roughly aligns with the framework for the Dream Act, a decade-old bill that would allow young undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as children -- often called Dreamers -- to become citizens if they met certain criteria.

But the Dream Act has a specific provision for military service while deferred action does not. Dreamers could either go to college or join the military in order to benefit from the Dream Act, but deferred action looks only at college. Although immigrants are eligible for deferred action if they have been honorably discharged from the military, undocumented immigrants are not eligible to join up, meaning the policy would only apply if they had already served.

A number of members of Congress and other leaders, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, have spoken in support of allowing immigrants covered by the Dream Act to join the military as part of that bill. Vargas said the groups are hoping some of those same officials will back their effort to allow deferred action recipients to enlist.

Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a spokesman for the Department of Defense, explained the agency's policies on immigrant enlistment in an email. "Current law does not permit the services to enlist those who are not U.S. citizens or legal residents, unless the services declare the enlistment of such a person to be 'vital to the national interest," he said. "There has been no change to DoD policy, and it would be inappropriate to speculate with regard to any future changes."

Vargas said he will continue to push the Obama administration and the Defense Department to make the change. He graduated from law school and would like to become a military lawyer.

"There is no legislation required for this action -- the president and the secretary of defense just need to issue one memo," he said. "That's all we need."

Michelle Rodriguez, 26, is also hoping to enlist. She came to the United States from Mexico 21 years ago, and is now earning her bachelor's degree with hopes of attending nursing school. She decided after the Sept. 11 attacks that she wanted to join the military, and her goal is toy become a nurse in the Marines. It would be possible to serve in the military with a U-Visa, she said, but she wants to join as soon as she can.

"It would mean fulfilling one of my dreams. It's one of my dreams to be able to serve," she said. "I think I have what it takes to be a Marine."

[billethkid]

Yes back to a merit based system...complete tort reform.....and elimination of tenure based jobs everywhere.

btk

[janmcn]

What happens in the not too distant future when whites are the minority race? Will whites be begging for an affirmative action-like policy? Whites recently became the minority in California.

[looneycat]

Perhaps, it would give us a little more clarity if we looked at the question another way. What if we asked the question "have you ever benefited from racism?" I think most of us would very quickly say a resounding NO! But is it true? My grandparents emigrated here from Europe about 100 years ago. I doubt if they would have been allowed to emigrate here if they were black. Remember for how many years we had the "Chinese Exclusion Act" which prohibited any Chinese people from coming here. How about getting an education? Did any of your ancestors benefit from an education that was totally unavailable to black people? Remember, the integration of most schools just happened about 50 years ago. How about getting a job? Did any of your ancestors get a job based on superior education and training that was unavailable to black people? How many black people did any of us work alongside in the 60's? (Military service excepted). So, my point is that in many ways we have all benefited from racism. First in being allowed to come to the land of opportunity when others were not based on the color of their skin. Next in being allowed to pursue an education when others were not based on the color of their skin. Next, in being considered for a job based on the color of their skin. The question is not whether or not affirmative action was EVER needed to correct past injustices. The question we should now be asking is whether or not affirmative action has accomplished its purpose and should now be discarded. What I say next may surprise you, but I believe that with the election of a black President, that affirmative action has done its job and we should now return to a strictly merit based system. But, I will never agree that it wasn't necessary in the first place.

hmmm, let's see, my father couldn't get a job because his name was too ethnic (Jewish), he changed his name and had a job within a week, because jewish isn't a color. I went to college on both my and my father's hard work. There were black people in my classes then.
I held a bunch of miserable jobs until I re-educated myself in the 'new' (well at that time) world of computers and never looked back from there. If affirmative action was to succeed then by now those people helped would have instilled a respect for education and job skills in their children and the problem would have solved itself, but freebies don't create workers they create takers who don't connect financial gains with work or careers but rather just putting their hands out and saying pity poor me.affirmative action? screw affirmative action, what truly works is work itself.

[twinklesweep]

hmmm, let's see, my father couldn't get a job because his name was too ethnic (Jewish), he changed his name and had a job within a week, because jewish isn't a color. I went to college on both my and my father's hard work. There were black people in my classes then.
I held a bunch of miserable jobs until I re-educated myself in the 'new' (well at that time) world of computers and never looked back from there. If affirmative action was to succeed then by now those people helped would have instilled a respect for education and job skills in their children and the problem would have solved itself, but freebies don't create workers they create takers who don't connect financial gains with work or careers but rather just putting their hands out and saying pity poor me.affirmative action? screw affirmative action, what truly works is work itself.

My college education was a freebie in that admission was based solely on academics, that is, one’s high school grade point average. Absolutely nothing else was considered—not race, not religion, not gender, not legal status, not the connotation of one’s surname, not community involvement—strictly by the numbers. The cutoff for admission versus non-admission was also determined strictly by the numbers; that is, one year the cutoff might have been a GPA of 91, while the following year 87, depending on the number of students applying and what their GPAs were.

First, I disagree with the premise above [bold emphasis mine] that “freebies don't create workers they create takers who don't connect financial gains with work or careers but rather just putting their hands out and saying pity poor me.” I cannot even speculate on the source of such an attitude (though several thoughts come to mind…). This college consistently produced a disproportionate number of award-winning, extraordinarily successful achievers, some with accomplishments that resulted in worldwide benefits to others. These awards and achievements would not have happened otherwise, which would have been a great loss from local community to universal.

Second, there are drawbacks—some not terribly important, some quite potentially serious—to the manner of selection based solely on academics, which is what some posters are suggesting. Using myself as an example, I went through high school without giving an iota of time to citizenship, community service, extracurricular activities, school service, and so forth. To be honest, there were legitimate reasons for my poor performance (or “non performance” is more accurate) in these ways: There were serious family health and economic issues that necessitated my working as soon as I was legally old enough to do so while arranging a school schedule that got me out as early as possible during the school day. However, I had classmates who were totally lacking in any sense of community, voluntarism, service, yet they had access to a free college education based on academics! One alleged psychopath (later diagnosed by a professional) was arrested and subsequently convicted for rape and violent assault—but his grades were great!

What potentially viable students missed out on a college education because their GPAs were a hundredth of a point less, who were beaten out (no pun intended) by, among others, a psychopath? So, IMHO, many factors need to be considered, and determining which should be taken into account is no easy feat. But to glibly insist that we go solely by numbers rather than by the human individuals in the select pool, ostensibly in the interest of fairness (or possibly some other agenda) might benefit some but could end up detrimental overall, notwithstanding the successes of the college I attended in the manner that they employed back then. I might add that the college no longer follows the strictly rigid, “GPA-elitist” path but now looks at each potential student individually. At least the powers-that-be are able to recognize a wrong and make it as right as it possibly can be. This is not a simple issue….

[CFrance]

"but freebies don't create workers they create takers who don't connect financial gains with work or careers but rather just putting their hands out and saying pity poor me.affirmative action? screw affirmative action, what truly works is work itself."

It amazes me when bold statements are made that paint an entire segment of population with the same brush. I would love to see statistics backing up the above statement.

And then I would love to see them applied to my niece, whose free-ride to Washington University in St. Louis enabled her to now be working in the field of sustainable architecture. And I do mean working,the same way she worked diligently all through high school and college. Oh, and she's Jewish.

If they had affirmative action back when your father was looking for a job, he wouldn't have had to change his name. My hope is we will not slide backward.

[perrjojo]

If this subject really interests you I must recommend a book WHITE GUILT and Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Civil Rights Movement by Shelby Steele. Steele was born to a Black father and a white Mother. I think it gives a very interesting account of how think we're meant to be and how they are.

[looneycat]

"but freebies don't create workers they create takers who don't connect financial gains with work or careers but rather just putting their hands out and saying pity poor me.affirmative action? screw affirmative action, what truly works is work itself."

It amazes me when bold statements are made that paint an entire segment of population with the same brush. I would love to see statistics backing up the above statement.

And then I would love to see them applied to my niece, whose free-ride to Washington University in St. Louis enabled her to now be working in the field of sustainable architecture. And I do mean working,the same way she worked diligently all through high school and college. Oh, and she's Jewish.

If they had affirmative action back when your father was looking for a job, he wouldn't have had to change his name. My hope is we will not slide backward.

so you agree with me...they got to college based on a respect for education and hard work. I worked hard as well, I turned 20 a month after I graduated from NYU. A scholarship for academic achievement is not a freebie and you cheapen it by calling it one as did the prior poster. Oh and they had affirmative action then, they fought the big one, wwII, and marched in the streets and weren't all that clear on what their ideals were.

[looneycat]

Oh, I should clarify that my father couldn't find a job on his return from serving in wwII after enlisting for the war.

[CFrance]

No, it's pretty clear I do not agree with your blanket statement that freebies don't create workers. Nor do I agree with and all the rest of what's in that sentence.

[Indydealmaker]

Possibly you all should clarify your disdain for freebies (which I share). Qualify the freebies as unearned freebies. In other words not scholarships and grants for education which normally require some performance qualifiers.

It is always easy to point out the exception to the rule. The niece, granddaughter, son of a friend, etc. who get a break and climb out of the pit to excel. The reality is that hand outs are not hand ups. If this was invalid we would be buried in data showing the success of all of the welfare programs. Yet, no one trumpets a myriad of such success stories, only hit and miss anecdotes.

Those voting with their hearts have got to dig deep to realize that continued hand outs serve to enslave the recipients. We need to rework public assistance in such a manner that everyone can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[BarryRX]

hmmm, let's see, my father couldn't get a job because his name was too ethnic (Jewish), he changed his name and had a job within a week, because jewish isn't a color. I went to college on both my and my father's hard work. There were black people in my classes then.
I held a bunch of miserable jobs until I re-educated myself in the 'new' (well at that time) world of computers and never looked back from there. If affirmative action was to succeed then by now those people helped would have instilled a respect for education and job skills in their children and the problem would have solved itself, but freebies don't create workers they create takers who don't connect financial gains with work or careers but rather just putting their hands out and saying pity poor me.affirmative action? screw affirmative action, what truly works is work itself.

I actually think that you've made my point. Your Dad couldn't get a job because his name was too ethnic, so he changed his name and had a job within a week. He experienced terrible discrimination and was denied employment he was qualified for because of his ethnicity. But he changed his name and got a job within a week. Now imagine if you will that your Dad was black. Changing his name wouldn't have helped, would it? He would have been denied employment and that just might have had a negative impact on the way your life turned out. According to historian David Oshinsky, on writing about Jonas Salk, "Most of the surrounding medical schools (Cornell, Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Yale) had rigid quotas in place. In 1935 Yale accepted 76 applicants from a pool of 501. About 200 of those applicants were Jewish and only five got in." He notes that the dean's instructions were remarkably precise: "Never admit more than five Jews, take only two Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all." Jews and Catholics could hide their religion or change their names, but Blacks couldn't change anything. But to return to my original premise, I don't believe that the argument should be whether affirmative action should have ever existed to correct centuries of racial discrimination, but should be whether or not it has accomplished its goal and should now be ended. As I said before, I have seen no metrics that can measure its effectiveness, and I think its time for it to end.

[looneycat]

Possibly you all should clarify your disdain for freebies (which I share). Qualify the freebies as unearned freebies. In other words not scholarships and grants for education which normally require some performance qualifiers.

It is always easy to point out the exception to the rule. The niece, granddaughter, son of a friend, etc. who get a break and climb out of the pit to excel. The reality is that hand outs are not hand ups. If this was invalid we would be buried in data showing the success of all of the welfare programs. Yet, no one trumpets a myriad of such success stories, only hit and miss anecdotes.

Those voting with their hearts have got to dig deep to realize that continued hand outs serve to enslave the recipients. We need to rework public assistance in such a manner that everyone can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

amen....

[looneycat]

I actually think that you've made my point. Your Dad couldn't get a job because his name was too ethnic, so he changed his name and had a job within a week. He experienced terrible discrimination and was denied employment he was qualified for because of his ethnicity. But he changed his name and got a job within a week. Now imagine if you will that your Dad was black. Changing his name wouldn't have helped, would it? He would have been denied employment and that just might have had a negative impact on the way your life turned out. According to historian David Oshinsky, on writing about Jonas Salk, "Most of the surrounding medical schools (Cornell, Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Yale) had rigid quotas in place. In 1935 Yale accepted 76 applicants from a pool of 501. About 200 of those applicants were Jewish and only five got in." He notes that the dean's instructions were remarkably precise: "Never admit more than five Jews, take only two Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all." Jews and Catholics could hide their religion or change their names, but Blacks couldn't change anything. But to return to my original premise, I don't believe that the argument should be whether affirmative action should have ever existed to correct centuries of racial discrimination, but should be whether or not it has accomplished its goal and should now be ended. As I said before, I have seen no metrics that can measure its effectiveness, and I think its time for it to end.

yup...I did say, you did quote me after all, because jewish is not a color, so don't get offended if I ignore that part of your statement,as to affirmative action, you are agreeing with me...so...great!