The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Jim Webb spoke out against affirmative action, calling for an end to government programs in regards to race.  Some praise him, some don't.  He's a Democrat in Virginia going against the base of his party.

To me, this needs to be evaluated two ways.  First, politically:

Webb is going to make a name for himself and get independents.  It will be a short term risk, with long-term reward, if he can make it.  He may get challenged and lose in the primary, but I think it's unlikely.  I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue.  They are seriously hurting in the white male vote, as it is, and I don't think there's much to gain in supporting affirmative action anymore.  Politically, it's hard to justify and is going to lose more and more votes.

Next, morally/ethically.

I am firmly against affirmative action, today.  I understand the need for it may have existed and the roots of thinking behind it, but at this point, I only think it's causing further racial division.  I think that it's hard to combat racism by discriminating in any fashion.  I don't think that things are equal for whites and blacks today, but I think that the government has done its part to level that playing field as much as possible.  Any additional steps they're taking is part of the problem, I feel.  Poor is poor.  Uneducated is uneducated.  Violence is violence.  It's not black/white anymore.

Personally I agree, however I can see where minorities might disagree.  While I think that opportunities exist for any race now, historically minorities have caught the short end of the stick, so I could see the reasoning being that it's too early to call for a complete removal of any favoritism.  There's still a good bit of catching up to do for past transgressions so to speak.

^^ That's true, however, I don't think the government can step in and close that gap.  It's up to the people.

I believe, perhaps naively, that businesses will do the right thing.  I think that natural, organic diversity creates a stronger business environment, and ultimately will help the bottom line.  It gives you a good public image, helps you gain perspective, and opens up new customer bases.

I think that race can still be ethically considered in qualifications, but that setting any kind of quota is a mis-step.

On the government end, I think that while the "debt" isn't "paid", that it can never really be paid, and that any more steps to do so are only causing additional strife.  I believe that there is a chance for success for anyone, should they truly seek it out.  It will be harder for some, but that race is no longer a key deciding factor over things like poverty and education.

First step needs to get rid of other systems of preference that still persists.  Such as hiring based on nepotism.

Or for example in Michigan, a few years back there was a ballot question that effectively stopped the University of Michigan from giving a preference in admission based on being an underrepresented race.  However, Michigan also granted a preference in admission based on having a parent who graduated from Michigan--that preference continues, but because whites are an over represented portion of the alumni it works as a form of race discrimination against blacks. 

Legacy admissions, particularly at state funded schools are completely wrong. 

In government, yes.  However, these are not recognized systems in place.  It's a result of crappy practices.  And I don't think that this needs to happen first.  You can't wait to make progress in one area first.  Nothing will get done that way.


That's an unfortunate consequence, but ultimately things like this will happen.  To me, the things aren't causal.  It's correlation, but something that will go away naturally over time.  It's a separate issue.

The biggest discriminator is taboo -- parent income / class.

What would have a profound effect is to look at EVERYTHING in society that limits class mobility. The "American Dream" is too much a "hitting the lottery" thing to really move things, but it's what politicians point to (ending debate) whenever the topic comes up.

I'm not saying I have a solution, but it's pretty clear that there's absolutely zero interest in looking at the problem.

While not directly causal it is more than a mere correlation.

The original purpose of legacy admissions was not to keep blacks out of college.  (They had other methods for that.)  The original purpose of legacy admission was to limit the number of Jews from attending college (it did slow the process by a bit, but eventually began to work for the Jews as so many were so vastly qualified they got in even with the preferences in place it eventually helped even more get in.  So a system that was designed for religious discrimination is now a race discrimination program paid for by taxpayers.

^ It appears that you are using this to justify affirmative action.

If so, that's my main issue.  I realize that there are injustices with regards to race.  But I think that artificially creating more injustices, in effort to balance that out, is the big mistake.

Sorta. I am saying if we are going to get rid of AA we need to simultaneously get rid of all the pro-white racial programs that exist, but first we need to stop pretending they don't exist or they they were mere correlations as you did in your earlier post. 

Legacy admissions is not a racial program. Blacks, jews, anyone gets that same benefit as long as they are legacy. Dave is correct, it is just a correlation. For it to be a racial program they would have to say all white legacies are granted this but not other races. You yourself said that the program had been overcome by a religous group already on their own with it still in place.

1.  The ORIGINAL purpose was designed to protect the majority in and keep minorities out.

2.  If the alumni population is 95% white but the overall population is only 75% white than it is in fact a racial program. 

Get rid of programs like this FIRST and then AA. 

I disagree with this mentality.

Just because a disproportionate amount of the population as determined by average racial breakdown takes advantage of a program doesn't make the program a racial program.

By that mentality, the state of california should do away with food stamps, because a disproportionate amount of hispanic and black households receive them vs. their percentage representation in the state population. Food stamps therefore must be a racial program.

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/research/res/pdf/foodtrends/FSA6.pdf <--- source (look at that .. someone on these boards references statistical research.. yay me)

It does if the original purpose of the program was to oppress a minority and benefit the majority, as is the case with legacy admissions. 

it seems to me more of a program to keep alumni happy and donating to the university than anything else

That is the revised reason given for the program as the original honest reason is no longer acceptable.

So you were there when they instituted the program or are you just using conjecture?

No.  This is why nothing gets done.

There is no first, then next.

AA is bad.  Get rid of it.  If you want to get rid of other things, too, fine -- but they're separate issues and it's just dragging your feet as an excuse to keep a bad program in place.

Harvard was the first to do it.  And they clearly stated that as the purpose when they first announced the program, in fact the idea was developed as the solution to solving the problem off too many Jews being admitted.  Yale including keeping Catholics as well as Jews out as part of their goal.

Others were not always as obvious and blatant, simply going with a more bland "if its good program for Harvard and Yale its good enough for us."

So since you were discussing Michigan (a public institution) and not Harvard (a private one) it is conjecture.

What you don't understand is that AA is there specifically to combat programs like legacy admissions.  If you want to get rid of them both, then let's talk.  Otherwise, the status quo is better than what you propose.

I'm surprised that some of you are taking such a passive attitude towards the problem of legacy programs.  The very first Jim Crow laws in the South (after the Civil War) gave legacy exemptions to the "literacy tests" for anyone who could vote before 1866 (or who was related to someone who could vote before 1866).  The entire purpose of a legacy program is to exclude outsiders in favor of benefiting existing members.  It's institutionalized nepotism, and is the living example of the Good Ol' Boy network in action.

For the record, I have no problem with replacing racial affirmative action with socioeconomic affirmative action; effectively, the purpose of the AA program was to help poor minorities overcome artificial obstacles to improving their socioeconomic standing.  I don't see any reason why a rich black kid should be admitted to a college over a poor white kid.  But any such change would immediately elicit cries of "class warfare," so I say that the system that we have is better than nothing.

you can't fix racism with racism

Once we figure that out, then we've begun to address the problem.

There's nothing wrong with nepotism, and while in the past legacy programs may have been used as a tool to further racism, there is nothing intrinsically racist about a parent wanting their child to attend the same university they did. The alumni of these schools, who contribute funds to these schools have the expectation that their children should be able to attend the same school assuming they meet the entry requirements.

Does anyone have actual numbers, just by the way? are we talking about less than 2% of a student body being a legacy?

Legacy programs may have been a tool with evil intentions in the past, just as fire hoses and police dogs were, but today, legacy programs are blind to race. As policies should be.

I understand.  I just don't care.

You don't combat something shitty by doing something shitty.

When you are willing to stand up to all shitty, we probably can come up with a comprehensible program to end both forms of "racism."  As long as you don't care about or actively support the continuation of programs designed to promote white christian supremacy and oppose any program that beings to equal the playing field just a bit, I will oppose the unilateral ending of AA.   

The solution to the problem is not to eliminate de jure racism while turning a blind eye to de facto racism (more accurately: classism, which just happens to affect minorities more).

There's nothing wrong with nepotism?  Seriously?  How do you feel about monarchies as a system of government?

That's not what we're talking about.  Even without a legacy program, the children of alumni can still get into a school.  The legacy program gives them preference over non-legacy applicants, which is (ostensibly) the problem, in exactly the same sense that minority applicants get preference over non-minority applicants in AA situations.

AA sucks - i lost out on a job recently to a FAR less qualified candidate just because he was black :-(

But this is the case regardless of the alumni's race .. which by definition makes this program not racist .. especially as more and  more minority graduates have children that choose to attend the same university their parents did.

as far as de jure vs. de facto racism .. you can't legislate away de facto racism .. you can only legislate de jure racism .. and de jure racism has no place in a modern law making.

On the topic of monarchies, i have nothing against them, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a monarchical system. there are 44 countries on the planet with a monarchical head of state. and most of them are doing quite well. I do think

That is absolutely not true.   We most certainly can legislate away many form of defacto racism, including legacy admissions.  You just only want to eliminate those forms of racism that helps non-whites while keep any form of racism in place that helps whites. 

By this same logic, laws that require anyone who couldn't vote before 1866 (or isn't related to someone who could) to pass a "literacy test" aren't racist, because they apply to everyone who couldn't vote before 1866, regardless of their race!  Therefore, it's perfectly fair.

Similarly, if a law were to be passed that gives preference to applicants with (naturally) black hair and brown eyes, that's not racist at all... it applies to anyone with black hair and brown eyes, regardless of race, right?

You cannot simply look at these things in a vacuum.  In a situation where 95%+ of the alumni is white, a system that gives preference to the children of alumni (who are likely to have a similar racial makeup) is applying a de facto racial preference.

Umm, the entire purpose of AA is to fix the problem of de facto racism through legislation.  Are you arguing that AA is ineffective or that it's unjust?  Those are two very different arguments.

So then, I presume you also have no problem with caste systems, nobility, an aristocratic ruling class, etc?

Bestowing privilege on individuals based on a birthright is antithetical to the very core of what this nation was founded on.  It's arguably even worse than racism.

How do you know this?  Or, more specifically, how can you know this?

If I've ever lost out on a position due to my competitor being a woman, I'm not sure how I would even find out.

We keep saying this isn't a racist policy though. Legacy admittance is applicable to all. How can it be racist if it doesn't discriminate by race. It may be nepotism, but it isn't racism.

Nice made up statistic there.

I'm arguing that racism breeds racism. And the application of racist doctrine will never eliminate racism.


is it ? i would argue that bestowing privilege on individuals based on birthright is at the very core of the modern american political system. Where you're only identifying this in the facet of nobility or a ruling class. i would say that in modern day America, those that are born into privilege have both a massive advantage in the probability of their future success as well as a much stronger voice in political decisions.

I wasn't born of privilege, when the time comes for me to claim an inheritance, i know it will be absolutely $0. I've worked since I was 17 to help support my family. Never once has my family taken a handout, collected welfare or received a single food stamp. I've never had an instance where my parents have bought me a car or helped out with my rent, much to the contrary. I attended college purely on merit based scholarships. My birthright was common sense, and a work ethic.

You see those in the nobility as having a birthright or those that are born into a monarchy as having privilege. I see those born into a family where the parents own their own house, aren't living paycheck to paycheck or those that have a college fund waiting for them to graduate high school as being born into privilege.


You absolutely have to look at these things in a vacuum. It isn't tit for tat . The racism directly displayed in AA policies is as a floodlight to the candle of the incidental racism from a legacy program. Universities shouldn't discriminate based on race period. It shouldn't even be part of the admissions process. Enact that policy and you'll see the disproportionate representation of the legacy programs disappear within one generation.

The legacy programs in college admissions aren't racist. They're just a Geiger counter on the topic. 95% of legacy applicants are white you say .. why? .. why is that ? when affirmative action has been around for a generation ?

Okay lets do it your way.  I am willing to change the AA action program to as follows:

"Gives preferential treatment to anyone who is a descendant of someone who was a slave in the USA at any time between the years 1783 and 1865."

Not all blacks would be eligible for AA (if 100% of their ancestors immigrated to the USA, as opposed to any being brought over on slave ships) and someone who caucasian skin color mixed race person  has one or more ancestors who was enslaved would be eligible.

reparations are an actual topic, you're presenting this as a hyperbole, but it's an actual topic

Which for the record, I'm of mixed feelings about. Should general non-targeted reparations be paid out, absolutely not. But if you can prove that one of your ancestors was enslaved by a specific corporation or estate still in existence today (but not a descendant), then a claim could be made.

That is a pointless position once you add "not a descendant” and don't allow for general reparation as almost none of the slaves were owned by corporations still in existence today. 

General reparations that would level the economic playing field could very well eliminate the need for AA.

I would support eliminating AA as part of a package that included reasonable reparations.

Likewise I would support eliminating AA as a package deal that eliminating and making illegal other aspects of racism that supports the majority. 

I oppose the elimination of AA while keeping other aspects of institution racism

Since you guys do not want to admit the bad side of it, I will give you factual evidence.

When I was 15 I completed the training program to become certified as a lifeguard. When I applied for a position at the only public pool in my small town, I was told they had to keep the position open in case a minority ever applied. There were no blacks in my town, and the majority of mexicans were illegals who folled the crop harvests. No minority ever applied for the job before I left toen 4 years later.
When I started college, I went to the financial aid office, as I came from a broken home and I was paying for college by myself. The financial aid guy told me he could not get any of the free programs for me. He then told me if I was black, I could get all kinds of money for school. I worked multiple jobs to put myself through school, and I knew multiple black guys who were partying it up with all their free money for school.
Also while in the Law Enforcement program at my school, there were job postings on the board for local and state openings. In 1990 there was a flyer from the CHP stating that they were significantly understrength for black and latino women, so they were desperately encouraging all black and latino females to apply. At the same time, it was a two year wait for non minority males to get into the academy.

So as someone who has been beaten by the AA bat throughout their life, and watched minorities abuse the shit out of a program designed to help them overcome "systemic" racism, I say fuck it. End it and all programs like it. I have yet to have any of my black or latino friends ever say they were clearly denied employment because of the color of their skin. But I have been and I know other just like me it has happened to also. But because we are white men, we are expected to just suck it up and deal with it.

Are you complaining?

I mean, as I understand it, even if it were 99% (and true), your position would be exactly the same.  So what's the problem?

Eliminate it?  No.  Nothing will eliminate it; I doubt even you would claim that abolishing AA would eliminate all racism.

The purpose of AA is to reduce/counterbalance the effects.

The modern American political system generally requires politicians to earn votes.  GWB didn't get to be President because his daddy was President; he got to be President by getting a majority of the American people to vote for him (well, sort of).

Sure.  And a person born into a family with a Harvard-educated parent has a massive advantage in the probability of their future success, based on that fact.  But there's a huge difference between an affluent parent providing the best they can for their kid, and one kid being picked over another kid solely because his parent is a Harvard graduate.

Doesn't this disprove the point you are trying to make?  You're saying that you worked hard, pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.  Yet if you and another applicant were trying to get into, say, Michigan, and his parent was a Michigan grad who provided him with all the things you didn't get, then even if you matched his every achievement, he'd automatically get in over you because of the legacy program.

This is the system you're defending?

Which is why there was proportionate representation prior to the enactment of the AA policies.  Oh, wait...

I have a question for you: do you think that the AA programs were ever justified?  If so, what has changed?

When did I claim that AA immediately and instantly solves all racial disparity issues?  It is an attempt to try to balance out the equation, but it's far from a magic bullet.

Actually the majority of people didn't vote for him.  The majority of people in the enough states holding the majority of the electoral college votes, voted for him. Which is what is required by our representative democracy.  (although that is questionable, thank you Florida :()  I personally think we would be better off with a direct democracy and a parliament instead of a representative one -- but both beat the hell out of a monarchy.

Hmmm.  In a way, I guess you might be able to consider yourself fortunate that your prospective employers told you that you weren't going to get the job because of your race, and not because of any sort of lack of experience or qualification (or other objective criteria that you can control).

See, for a minority, telling them that would be kind of illegal.  So when that's the case for a minority (and I'm sure you don't believe that never happens), guess what?  No one ever calls them up and says, "Yeah, we would have hired you, but we were really looking for a less... ethnic... person to fill the job."  They simply don't get a call at all, or they get a call with a boilerplate "The position went to someone else" response.

So while I don't doubt the veracity of your story, there aren't going to be any counterexamples of hiring managers telling a minority that they would have gotten the job If Only They Were White.  Because while that does happen, no one would ever actually say it.

Hence, the "well, sort of."

AA is a racist policy.  Though it counterbalances other racists polices (or unsuccessfully tries to), it doesn't help solve the problem, only stretching it out.

It is causing more racism.  It was a short term fix, but now I think that our laws have caught up.  Now it's up to us to gradually solve the problem organically.

The problem is you are about 30% too high for the Univeristy we are discussing (or at least started with). You made up a number and tried to carry on as if it were fact. The state is roughly 74% white. The school is roughly 64% white. The school is actually more diverse than the state itself but you are trying to say they are 95% white. That is my problem.

If I'm not mistaken, you are objecting to my hypothetical figure of 95% and saying that Harvard (or maybe Michigan? I dunno) is actually only 64% white.  Fine.  So, in your opinion, at what % of non-diversity does legacy admission become wrong?  95%?  80%?  Or is legacy admission fine as long as the university is (at least) as diverse as the state it is located in?

This is my problem with your line of objection.  You complain about my hypothetical figure, but it seems to me that if you are to be consistent with your position, it doesn't matter how skewed the student body is... you're still going to defend legacy admissions.  So why quibble over made-up numbers when you don't really care what they are anyway?

This implies that you believe that, at one time, AA was actually needed.

So my question to you is: how have our laws "caught up"?  Specifically, what new laws have been passed (between the start of the AA programs and now) that have solved the problems that caused AA to be created in the first place?  What do you believe has changed?

If your belief is based on statistical evidence, this would be a great time to cite it.

Because others may indeed care what the number is. You went to an extreme to try and prove a point. That gets called out in every discussion such as this one. If I threw out fictitious information don't act like no one would comment on it.

Can't we all just get along?

...my head hurts now.  Thanks, guys.

Not really.  I don't even think it's worth discussing that at this point.  It's already done, and I didn't live in the society at the time to make an intelligent judgment about it.  It was probably always a bad idea, but maybe one that was more justifiable on the heels of Jim Crow laws.  Whether it was needed then isn't really relevant though.  It's not needed now, and it causing further division.

That's precisely correct.  Your argument is that legacy admissions are acceptable, regardless of the makeup of the alumni.  If that's the case, then you should have no objections to a legacy program at a university that's 95% white, while still maintaining that it's not a de facto form of racial discrimination.

If your argument is that the numbers don't matter, you should expect people to throw out extreme numbers as a counterexample.

How can you reasonably argue that "laws have caught up and AA isn't needed now" without assessing whether or not it was needed in the first place?

I ask again: what, exactly, has changed?  What laws were passed that have fixed the problem?  Because it seems that most of those kind of laws would be affirmative action laws, which you are now seeking to repeal.

Let me be clear: as I've already said, I think AA should be replaced with a system that gives preference to people of low socioeconomic status (usually, but not always, minorities).  I think it's a travesty that a minority of privilege could be given a leg up over a poor white person.  But I think that's a relatively rare example, and to completely discard a program that helps a great majority of the people that it should because it also helps a small fraction of the people it shouldn't is a bad idea.

I'm all for replacing AA with a similar program targeted towards the poor (of all races).  But as for simply removing it and then maybe-we'll-do-something-else-later?  Sorry, I'm not buying that.

And conversely I would have no objections to a legacy program at a 95% black school as well. See how that works both ways. Still not racism.

I already said it's not (strictly speaking) racism; it's classism which just happens to affect minorities more.

Even at an optimally-diverse university (or a historically black college, take your pick), it's still wrong.  It helps the haves at the expense of the have nots.

Kids are still going to get into a school. There are just too many out there. It almost doesn't matter the school anymore unless you are speaking grad school or Ivy league schools anyway.

And you've just defused your own argument for eliminating AA in school admissions.

Either artificial advantages in admissions matter, or they don't.  Which one is it?

I don't just oppose AA for shcool admissions. I oppose AA for all purposes because it is a policy based on race. So I didn't actually contradict myself at all. Legacy programs are not based on race. Completely different items.

It's not relevant, that's why.  I would never have supported AA from my position now, but I wasn't alive in the 60s, so I can't say for sure.  It's a bad program now.  It was probably a bad program then, too.  Things have come a long way with society, either way.

Of course they would not say it because they would get nailed with a serious lawsuit and a fine for discrimination. Yet this same behavior is considered non offensive when it happens to a member of one select group.
I do not believe that it somehow balances out the books by taking away the racism towards one group, and inflicting it upon another group.

I think there's an elephant in the room, so I'm going to just say it:

I believe that Mr. Webb's recent statement, along with a lot of the current right-wing focus on AA, the NAACP, ACORN, etc., has a great deal to do with who is currently in the Oval Office.  Lest you think that I'm simply playing the race card, let me make two simple statements that should clearly illuminate my position:

1) Had Hillary beaten Obama in the primary and won the general, instead of all this backlash against the NAACP and AA, we would be seeing a bunch of stories on NOW, Title IX, Planned Parenthood, etc.

2) As soon as Obama vacates the Oval Office, Fox and the rest of the right's interest in pursuing race-related stories will fall off suddenly and drastically

I'm sorry, but the timing of this really seems like a modern-day Southern Strategy.  Scare all the white people with stories of brown people taking their jobs, so they turn against Obama and the Democrats.  In Jim Webb's case, I daresay it's an attempt to triangulate and protect his right flank (Virginia is not exactly a deep blue state).

^^ I'm sure that some have political motivations, but I think that you can also make the argument that Obama being in the Oval Office is a sign that blacks now can do whatever whites can.  It also means that race is on the brain.  ...and I think that AA comes up in every presidential cycle.  I definitely had this conversation when Bush was in office, too.

Also, I don't feel that Webb's comments are coming from a sinister place.  Even though others may raise race issues and bring them to the forefront, there's nothing wrong with voicing your opinion about it once it's brought up.  I am against AA, as I've said here, and I think that I'm a liberal thinker and a supporter of the Democratic party, for the most part.  I don't think my feelings toward the issue have anything with having a black guy in office.

One more thing: Politically speaking, why doesn't some group (I would think the GOP would do it) go after AA really hard?  I would think if they were to bring the issue to the forefront, that they'd win in a landslide, in terms of public opinion.  I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be shocked if the supporters of that legislation were even close to 50%.  It seems like a slam dunk for an election cycle, not to mention that the GOP already has very little African American backing, so there's not a lot of risk.

I do.  And it is very similar to the law passed in AZ.  When ever there is any sort of economic or other trouble the expedient political thing to do is to get the popular support of the majority to scapegoat all the problems on a minority group.

Alabama's problems will all be solved if we stop offering DL tests in Spanish.
Virginia's problems will all be solved if we end AA.
Arizona's problems will all be solved if it wasn't for thee damn Mexicans. 
Germany's lost WWI and its economy was in shambles because of the Jews. 

It is a very effective political position. 

There's a relevant, topical example we can use to answer your question:  laws designed to target illegal immigrants.

I don't imagine that the levels of popular support for illegal immigration are higher than 50%.  Yet when you make laws like California's Prop. 187 in 1994 (which denied all gov't services to any person who is here illegally) or Arizona's recent S.B. 1070, Latinos understand quite well that the law isn't really about getting rid of illegal Polish immigrants.  So by pandering to the majority today, you alienate a large group for the future.  Not coincidentally, since 1994, Republican statewide candidates in California have lost nearly every election; the notable exception (Arnold) won in a recall election, meaning that he did not have to survive a Republican primary (where candidates are forced to run to the right to win - see: Whitman, Meg).  You say that there's not much risk in alienating minority voters when the GOP captures so few of their votes to begin with, but actually pursuing such strategies flirts dangerously close to aiming for your own self-extinction (if you follow demographic trends).

If one wants to argue for the elimination of AA, a reasoned discussion can take place; AA is not a sacred cow.  But to do so immediately after the election of the first black President will appear to minority voters as an attempt to woo the recently-surging anti-minority demographic.  And regardless of whether or not you believe that AA should be eliminated, you'd have to admit that a person who wanted to court said demographic would certainly be well-advised to push an anti-AA agenda in the current environment.

And you are completely missing the anger of the residents of states who have watched millions of their tax dollars wasted every year going to print and make signs in another language to accomidate illegals.
These coals do not need to be realy stoked, people have been pissed about this type of stuff even during the economic upcycle.
But I guess that is too hard for the elitists to comprehend that people who have been dealing with a crappy situation that the people responsible refuse to address would have strong opinions wether the economy is good or bad.

because it was an internal job, and i know people higher up that told me that was the case.  Disney hires purely by diversity quotas - HALF of my entire department is female.  HALF!!  it should be like less than 10% women in my field

I don't believe anyone ever said or insinuated this.

It doesn't matter if AA causes problems or alleviates them.  That's not really the point.  The system itself goes against what this country should be -- our best and brightest based solely on merit.

I know you may never have experienced this or would believe people would admit to it, but it happens. Because it is okay to openly discriminate in job placement and hiring against white males, many people who do the hiring have no problems openly admitting that they were forced to discriminate in order to be sure they were in compliance with AA regulations.
Hell they will tell you with a sullen tone because they could not hire who they wanted or even the most qualified person because of AA.
The sad part is that minority women benefit the most because they belong to two minority groups when it comes to AA hiring.

Oh, I don't dispute that it happens.  It probably happens more often than you think, and for non-AA reasons; I've worked at companies where the management actively pursued what was known as "the beautification project," which resulted in an overabundance of hot females being hired.  But I'm not sure that I would technically categorize that as "affirmative action," and I seriously doubt that any of the men/ugly chicks who were turned down were told that they weren't hot enough or female enough for the position.

The main counterpoint I was making is that if you were discriminated against because of your age or gender, the only time someone would actually tell you about it is if you are a white male.  So the citing of anecdotes is necessarily going to be one-sided, because no one is going to tell me about the job that I didn't get because of my race.

I don't if this story is relevent or not....

I KNOW for a fact that a I passed in a course in high school because of my religion.  And it was not because of some sort of gov't mandated program.

My senior year I took German I (I had already taken two years of Spanish).  I did not need to pass the class to graduate.  I didn't want to take the class.  But it was the only class with space that fit my schedule and I was required to take a certain number of credits even though I didn't need to pass even half of them to graduate. 

I did absolutely nothing in that class.  I attended class, cause being truant would get you in a lot of trouble and I wasn't disruptive in class or anything like that.  But I only half heartly paid attention, never did homework, never studied and rarely got a passing mark on an exam.  And learned almost no German.

But I passed the class.  It was the teachers first year teaching.  Her dad had been in the Army during WWII.  Being only 9 years old at the end of WWII to she bore no personal responsiblity for the actions of her nation, however, she could bring herself to fail the only Jew in her class not matter how much he deserved to fail the class. 

Fair enough.  Admittedly, I'm surprised at how much support AA does have.  I looked at some polling data (from over a year ago, granted) and it had nationwide support for AA at about 45% pro (55% against).  That's probably a little bit too high, considering today's environment.

I also read an argument about Webb and how his move is a big risk and (the writer's opinion) won't necessarily help him politically.  It also said, though, that Webb's discussion was not to eliminate AA altogether, but to keep it for American born blacks (whose strife can be traced back to govt. caused slavery), but eliminated for other groups. -- keeping the black demographic, perhaps?