According to an article in Saturday’s Washington Post,
Federal prosecutors are threatening to sue Southern Illinois University over three scholarship programs aimed at women and minorities, calling them discriminatory.
You have to love that “calling them discriminatory.” The Associate Press can’t bring itself to write that programs that exclude males, whites, Asians, and any number of other minorities actually are discriminatory.
The Proactive Recruitment of Multicultural Professionals for Tomorrow fellowships and the Bridge to the Doctorate fellowships are aimed at increasing enrollment of minorities in graduate programs where they are underrepresented….
A third program, the Graduate Dean’s fellowships, are for women and minorities who have overcome adverse social, cultural or economic conditions.
[SIU Chancellor Walter] Wendler said SIU has “lots of other fellowship programs open to everyone.”
Oh, now I get it. SIU’s discriminatory programs are not really discriminatory because SIU has many other programs that aren’t discriminatory.
Let an employer try that:
“We want to hire a white person for this job, but we have lots of other jobs open to black people.”
John, the problem with us is that we actual believe that discrimination is always wrong. The Left has nothing against discrimination as long as the
Richard writes:
>>>”John, the problem with us is that we actual believe that discrimination is always wrong. The Left has nothing against discrimination as long as the
I would argue that the “Right” espouses the same belief, which would explain WHY there had to be a “civil rights” movement in the first place.
Not the “Right” that I know, or that I’m a part of (if indeed I am part of any Right). In my view, the Right believes that all racial discrimination is wrong, acknowledges not only that the great blot on our history is that it existed and indeed still exists and that both the “Right” and the “Left” are guilty of that past discrimination, but does not believe discrimination today in favor of the descendants of that past discrimination is an appropriate remedy. In fact, we Righties believe such discrimination merely continues the old wrong, albeit based (for the most part) on better motives.
Cobra, in the 1960s I was part of the civil rights movement because I thought that discrimination was wrong. In those days I was denounced for being a liberal. My views haven
‘In fact, we Righties believe such discrimination merely continues the old wrong, albeit based (for the most part) on better motives.’
wow. If only the old wrong was ‘merely’ what we have now in the form of affirmative action.
actus, when you find a way to change the past, please let us all know.
Of course the easy way to put an end to the racist nonsense if for every applicant to Southern Illinois to check off that they are African-American on their application. When some middle age black clerk tries to change the response to something else, the applicants should then sue the pants off the university.
They way to end this nonsense is to threathen the livelyhoods of the Aparthied want-to-bes and they will stop.
“I would argue that the “Right” espouses the same belief, which would explain WHY there had to be a “civil rights” movement in the first place.
–Cobra”
And, you would be wrong in that argument. The overseer of the Jim Crow south was… ta da! The Democratic Party. It was the party to which you belong that bears the guilt of segregation.
How did you get it backwards?
Unfortunately, I think that the Rosenberg faction is but a fraction of 1) those who profess themselves to be conservatives, 2) those who vote for Republicans these days, and 3) those who are perceived as the Right.
(Also, in response to a later comment, I think that the Right have not always been Republicans, and vice versa.)
Craig,
You beat me to the punch, there.
Richard writes:
>>>”In those days I was denounced for being a liberal.”
Who was denouncing you?
–Cobra
“actus, when you find a way to change the past, please let us all know.”
Its not about changing the past. Its about those today portraying the past wrong. Which, actually, in a way, is a bit like changing the past.
Who was denouncing you?
Bigots, of course. Would you like their names?
To anticipate your next question Cobra, I grew up and went to school in New York City (Columbia University) so they weren’t rednecks from the South.
“! The Democratic Party. It was the party to which you belong that bears the guilt of segregation.
How did you get it backwards? ”
And those dixecrats are now republicans. You really don’t think that the jim crowers of then have much to do with the democrats of today do you? I mean, that’s more misusing the past, than re-writing it.
Actus, speaking about people who attempt to rewrite history, the last time I checked Robert (KKK) Byrd was still a Democrat.
Stop The Racism! Stop The Sexism!
What would happen if a public university tried to set up a set of special program to provide lucrative fellowship to white or male students (or
When you consider that the bulk of us who are active in today’s conservative movement were not even born at the time of Brown v. Board of Education and were in grade school during the 1960s, I think the arguemnt over what “the Right” or “conservatives” did back in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s is somewhat absurd. The contemporary conservative movement is a non-racist movement, and is more supportive of color-blindness than contemporary liberalism.
Rhymes writes:
>>>” The contemporary conservative movement is a non-racist movement, and is more supportive of color-blindness than contemporary liberalism.”
Cite me examples, with sources if you would of this “contemporary conservative movement” being “non-racist.”
I would be extremely interested.
–Cobra
“You really don’t think that the jim crowers of then have much to do with the democrats of today do you?”
Yes, the Democratic Party is still the party of racism. It embraces a racial quota system. It allows a thug like Al Sharpton a voice. This is the mirror image of embracing Bull Connor if you are white. The Democratic Party is overtly, proudly racist.
“Actus, speaking about people who attempt to rewrite history, the last time I checked Robert (KKK) Byrd was still a Democrat.”
And he’s also denounced his past. So did Melhman denounce the southern strategy. Good for him. Good for both of them.
Ah, actus, the never ending, absolutely predictable con job.
White men are supposed to live a life of perpetual penance.
Fat chance you’ll put that one over on me.
What will you do when the last white man refuses to play the game with you?
And he’s also denounced his past
If you believe that actus I have a bridge to sell you. This is the same person who used the n-word in the not too distant past. Maybe you should ask Cobra if all is forgiven between himself and Senator Byrd. I would love to hear that answer.
“This is the same person who used the n-word in the not too distant past. ”
There’s a difference between using the N-word and being in the KKK. What policy effect do you think he’s had? Does he currently support a more dixiecrat policy?
“White men are supposed to live a life of perpetual penance.”
The white guys that voted for teh civil rights act have no penance to do for that. The white guys that based a southern strategy on that do. Do you really think there’s no difference?
There’s a difference between using the N-word and being in the KKK. What policy effect do you think he’s had? Does he currently support a more dixiecrat policy?
Actus, don’t ask me those questions, ask yourself those questions. Why would a self-professed liberal be tying himself in knots trying to convince everyone that a former (?) KKK member is really the second coming of Martin Luther King? Why would you want someone with a background like that as a member in good standing of the Democrat party?
“Actus, don’t ask me those questions, ask yourself those questions”
Why? I’m being told to oppose him. He’s not my senator, I don’t know anything about his race policies, and yet I’m told to oppose him because of his race polices. And I ask you, what are they? And you don’t know?
“Why would a self-professed liberal be tying himself in knots trying to convince everyone that a former (?) KKK member is really the second coming of Martin Luther King?”
Who in gods name thinks that? Do you notice the difference between this standard — ‘2d coming of king’ and the second standard ‘good standing in the democratic party’ ? Do you think those are the same?
“Why would you want someone with a background like that as a member in good standing of the Democrat party?”
Because it shows that you can change your mind and do good. Has he?
Why? I’m being told to oppose him. He’s not my senator, I don’t know anything about his race policies, and yet I’m told to oppose him because of his race polices. And I ask you, what are they? And you don’t know?
Actus, you got it all wrong. I didn’t want you to oppose him. What I wanted was to see if you would support a Democrat who if he were a Republican you would be denouncing as a racist. However, to be fair, I gave you every opportunity to back away from your support for him but you refused to do so. I guess as far as you are concerned, when it comes to Democrats, party comes before principle. The next time you try to tell us about the moral superiority of Liberals I will remind you of this thread.
“What I wanted was to see if you would support a Democrat who if he were a Republican you would be denouncing as a racist.”
I’d want him to change his mind. Lott showed people that he hadn’t, and that was bad. Has Byrd? He’s denounced his past. When he says otherwise, its outie time. Well, rather, Its time for him to step down from his leadership positions.
No, actus, wrong again.
Your pronounciations as to who is, and who is not, racist are not the determining factor in a man’s career.
I reject completely the absurd notion that a single black calling a white man a racist condemns that man.
Where did you get these silly notions?
I don’t care whether 99.9% of black people think Lott is a racist. If he gets elected, he stays in office.
“I reject completely the absurd notion that a single black calling a white man a racist condemns that man.”
To which, one might ask:
“Where did you get these silly notions?”
That’s a good question everyone ought to be asking themselves.
“I don’t care whether 99.9% of black people think Lott is a racist. If he gets elected, he stays in office. ”
I think he’s racist. Basically I want him out of office so I can have some mint juleps on his porch.