As college neared filling out applications became more of a ritual, and I found that by being born into a white middle class family would hinder my financial status rather than help it. Recently an article appeared in the Iowa State Daily, which addressed the issue of a white-only scholarship. In addition to the scholarships offered to members of the minority races, a scholarship should be offered to the members of the decreasing majority. Whites or Caucasians make up a group just as Native Americans, blacks, and Hispanics do. The one thing that separates whites from these other groups besides skin color is the fact that for each minority group, there are several scholarships that pertain to each.
I thought this was a very interesting article. I don’t really know much about our economy or the technical workings of the government sponsored diversity programs Webb is talking about, but my gut reaction is to think that he is pretty off base. Webb writes that he is dedicated to bringing fairness to America’s economy and work force, but how can he do this if he is against the programs that are working towards that fairness? My basic understanding of his point of view is that he believes that today, government-directed diversity programs that favor people of color are unfair because they give an unnecessary and unfair advantage to certain groups, while ignoring whites who might need just as much help. I disagree; I think that these programs are necessary to balance out the unfair advantage whites automatically get just by being white.
If America regulated Singers proposal, it would positively effect peoples morals and the values they place on a life. Singer also Cites Peter Unger “By his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year old transform into a healthy 6-year old” $200 dollars would seem very inexpensive to most to save a life. If every American who could spare $200 to donate overseas, the number of lives saved would be tremendous. This would also create a ripple effect causing Americans to follow those who donate. The cons of Singers proposal is that it is unethical and would drastically change Americas economy and culture.
Many people claim that this distinction in race is necessary because the society in which we live is still racist and only parents of the same ethnic group would be able to give enough cultural support to the children. On the other hand this distinction on races can be considered racist for some people and it could contribute to create a racist society. In the section called “Room for Debate” of the New York Times website, we can find a debate showing different arguments about this issue. In the depate there are three participants with very clear and strong positions. One of the participants is Kevin Noble, author of the article “Not a Deciding Factor but not to be ignored”.
This is an over-statement because he is canceling out all the other races leaving the whites to be the only smart ones. This statement shows no evidence into how whites are the better test takers. Therefore this is an opinion and not a fact. On Roger Clegg side he has no evidence that supports that in certain instances a non-diversity candidate is denied an employment opportunity just because pool does not contain a diversity candidate. So therefore it would be called a myth to do to the fact that it’s probably something everyone many think but it is not true.in Robert Staples argument “ it is indeed, true that they are better test takers than women and people of color—in part because they created and administer the
The university had a quota system set up that 16 of the 100 spots open for that program would go to minorities, and Bakke argued that this was unconstitutional. Bakke won and lost. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor that he should be accepted into the university, but ruled also that universities could take race into
Democrats, or liberals, are usually in favor of taxing the poor less, and of healthcare for people who cannot afford it--this is known as Obamacare, which was repealed because it was considered unconstitutional. Republicans would rather everyone “fend” for themselves, and not have their tax dollars being used to pay for someone who is on welfare. There is also the religion issue. This is not as distinguishing. Traditionally, Republicans are largely Christian, but there are exceptions.
Affirmative Action – An Insult to Minorities Boston University College Republicans President Joe Mroszczyk recently confuted Affirmative Action at the Boston University Great Debate in April 2007. “He said, ‘[Affirmative Action] tells [minorities] their only value is their race and [they are] not . . . an individual who can compete with whites on the same level,’” (Benjamin).
Giving 70 MP’s a 5,000 dollar raise is chump change to giving 42,000 teachers or bus drivers, or garbage persons, or phone jockeys, paper shufflers a 15% wage increase. Giving the teachers 15% would cost the taxpayer (not the government, like so many morons think) $315,000,000, then we’d have to give the same to all the other losers on the list above when they decide to hold us hostage be refusing to do their menial task. If the fact that an MP got a raise pisses you off, do something about it instead of standing there with your hand out. Otherwise go play hockey. Your hours with the kids thought is also moronic, buy yourself a calculator, take it out of the box and read the instructions….
Walter Benn Michaels' argument makes more sense than Giroux's, because the idea of keeping diversity apart of our lives keeps America from becoming truly "united." Benn Michaels says that focusing on race as the thing keeping America seperate is entirely wrong. The main problem comes down money and class. Class differences are the sole reason why America is diverse and not united. When focusing on race and ethnicity the real problem of social class differences gets brushed under the rug.