Jump to content


Member Since 06 Aug 2012
Offline Last Active Today, 02:33 PM

#2141089 let's have a calm, rational discussion about scholarships for minorities

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 22 February 2013 - 12:13 AM

even in the presence of minority scholarships, white people receive a disproportionately high number of scholarships:

Posted Image

The issue here isn’t racial discrimination, it’s a symptom of the fact that the incentive structure of American higher education is totally screwy. Schools want to produce two things. One is rich alumni who give them money, and the other is high ratings from US News and World Report. Both goals can be pursued either by investing resources in recruiting better inputs or else by investing resources in doing a better job of teaching. It turns out to be more cost-effective to invest in recruiting better inputs. And since high school seniors from high socioeconomic status families tend to already be better-prepared for college than kids from low-socioeconomic status families, that means that financial aid resources naturally flow to the high-socioeconomic status students.

It’s not just race and it’s not just scholarships. Across the board, the way higher education works in America is to deliver the most resources to the people who need the least help.



First, it is simply false that scholarships for people of color crowd out monies for white students. According to a national study by the General Accounting Office, less than four percent of scholarship money in the U.S. is represented by awards that consider race as a factor at all, while only 0.25 percent (one quarter of one percent) of all undergrad scholarship dollars come from awards that are restricted to persons of color alone (1). In other words, whites are fully capable of competing for and receiving any of the other monies — roughly 99.75 percent of all scholarship funds out there for college. Although this GAO study was conducted in the mid-’90s, there is little reason to expect that the numbers have changed since then. If anything, increasing backlash to affirmative action and fear of lawsuits brought by conservatives against such efforts would likely have further limited such awards as a percentage of national scholarships.

In truth, only 3.5 percent of college students of color receive any scholarship even partly based on race, suggesting that such programs remain a pathetically small piece of the financial aid picture (2). So when Mr. Bohannon walks around campus and sees students of color, he may believe them all to be wards of some race-based preference scheme; yet the evidence suggests that at least 96.5 percent of them received no race-based scholarship at all.

There is an incredibly diverse array of scholarships available for all kinds of things, that have nothing to do with academic merit alone, but are tied to various aspects of a student’s identity: scholarships for people who are left-handed, or kids whose parents sell Tupperware, or the children of horse-breeders, or descendants of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, among many thousands of such awards (3).

To begin, the claim that whites are being disadvantaged by minority scholarships, even in theory, ignores the many ways in which the nation’s educational system provides unfair advantages to whites from beginning to end. It ignores the fact that the average white student in the U.S. attends school with half as many poor kids as the average black or Latino student, which in turn has a direct effect on performance, since attending a low-poverty school generally means having more resources available for direct instruction (4). Indeed, schools with high concentrations of students of color are 11-15 times more likely than mostly white schools to have high concentrations of student poverty (5). To point to minority scholarships as a source of unfairness that somehow tilts the opportunity structure too far in favor of non-white folks, is to ignore that white students are twice as likely as their African American or Latino counterparts to be taught by the most highly qualified teachers (in terms of prior preparation and specific subject certification), and half as likely to have the least qualified instructors in class (6). This too directly benefits whites, as research suggests being taught by highly qualified teachers is one of the most important factors in school achievement (7). To scream about the unfairness of minority scholarships is to ignore that long before the point of college admissions, whites are twice as likely to be placed in honors or advanced placement classes, relative to black students, and that even when academic performance would justify lower placement for whites and higher placement for blacks, it is the African American students who are disproportionately tracked low, and whites who are tracked higher (8). Indeed, schools serving mostly white students have three times as many honors or AP classes offered, per capita, as those serving mostly students of color (9).

^i went to bold the important parts of this specific quotation but ended up with a solid black paragraph so just read it all

So although it is true that whites are excluded from 0.25 percent of the scholarship monies available for college, this cannot rationally be considered a disadvantaging factor in our lives, given the larger, ingrained and systematic advantages from which we benefit, and from which most people of color are excluded. The 0.25 percent of scholarships for students of color is literally a drop in the bucket compared to the latter.

Despite the claim that race-based scholarships for people of color amount to a double-standard (since scholarships for folks of color are considered legitimate, but white scholarships aren’t), in truth, the standard is simple, straightforward and singular: persons belonging to groups that have been systematically marginalized should have opportunities targeted to them so as to allow for the development of their full potential, which otherwise might be restricted.

In effect, these are not scholarships based on race, but rather, scholarships based on a recognition of racism and how racism has shaped the opportunity structure in the U.S.

^this part is very important too. the only thing worse than doing something to specifically help marginalized minorities in america is to admit that racism is actually a real thing

there's more here: http://www.timwise.o...ian-victimhood/

it's a great article on the topic

#2140981 Study - Climate Change Deniers More Likely to Believe In Crazy Conspiracies

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 21 February 2013 - 10:19 PM

^wtf is that in the sky some kind of widely dispersed chemtrail or something?


Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 21 February 2013 - 03:10 AM

so this is still ok right i mean this seems to be equivalent to the softcore avs and signatures around here (everything's covered)

Posted Image

will i be reprimanded if i make this my avatar and, if so, can you explain why it's different from the other avs around here?

also can i make this my signature or what:

Posted Image

#2140079 "Knock out" teen shot breaking/entering

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 20 February 2013 - 09:14 PM

anyone else notice that, as i've recently seen him referred as, "lard_biscuit's" posts are 50% platitudes and 50% "lol u jst got schooolledde" without ever having posted anything of substance?

#2140045 Should the Huddle have a forum to discuss racial issues?

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 20 February 2013 - 08:52 PM

seems like several posters here already have a separate "forum to discuss racial issues"

it's called stormfront and it's been bleeding over into the tinderbox quite a bit here lately

#2139222 "Knock out" teen shot breaking/entering

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 20 February 2013 - 03:05 AM

I don't really care why.

Urban, redneck, big city, small town or whatever; if you're just gonna declare yourself a victim and teach your kids that all the cards are stacked against them and they have no chance no matter what they do, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes, your kids will fail, and it'll be largely your fault.

Tell them instead that whatever obstacles they face can be conquered, they still could fail for any number of reasons but at least you taught them to work rather than whine.

this is a really dumb post. here's part of the reason why:

-- Black youth with no prior admissions were six times more likely (and Latino youth were three times more likely) to be incarcerated in public facilities than white youth with no prior admissions when charged with the same offense.


you see black youth were six times more likely to be incarcerated than white youth when charged with the same crime because their parents taught them to be victims

Even in neighborhoods that are predominantly white, black and Latino New Yorkers face the disproportionate brunt. For example, in 2011, Black and Latino New Yorkers made up 24 percent of the population in Park Slope, but 79 percent of stops. This, on its face, is discriminatory.


Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but, once stopped, were no more likely to be arrested.


ugh those damn parents teaching their kids to be victims basically forces the police to brazenly profile them

Two-thirds of those arrested for drug violations in 2006 were white and 33 percent were black, although blacks made up 12.8 percent of the population, F.B.I. data show.

Her report cites federal data from 2003, the most recent available on this aspect, indicating that blacks constituted 53.5 percent of all who entered prison for a drug conviction.


black people make up ~1/3 of drug arrests, yet only ~18% of the population, but those damned parents taught them to be victims so juries just have to convict them twice as much as white people who have been charged with the exact same crimes

ugh THOSE PARENTS don't they know that they can just tell their kids to be professional athletes and make millions for themselves and billions for their slaveow- er, "owners"

The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.


you see they've been taught to be victims their whole lives and that's why they are repeatedly victimized. if they would just stop expecting to be victimized, surely employers will start hiring degree-holding black people over white felons

what you're doing is called "victim blaming", with a heaping bunch of "pulling poo out of your ass." stop posting about things you don't understand.

#2128862 Israel gave birth control to Ethiopian Jews without their consent

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 08 February 2013 - 03:17 AM

^watch this: http://www.aljazeera...3819678591.html

#2122450 Speaking of tipping...

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 02 February 2013 - 10:50 PM

People don't need to be religious to justify themselves for being assholes. Both religious and non-religious do it every day with no outside assistance whatsoever.

for example:

You can thus conclude that not only Is the lady in the middle of this story a bit of a wench, but she's also kinda dumb when it comes to math.

don't see why you had to start dropping gendered slurs but hey whatevs

ps get fuged, moron

#2119893 Suprise: Possessing a gun makes you less safe not more safe

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 31 January 2013 - 03:12 AM

You have a right to protect your property, not just your life. It is at the owner's discretion whether or not he feels his property is valuable enough to protect by using a weapon or to just allow someone to waltz in and take their stuff without putting up a fight because you feel confident enough that the masked man with a gun won't hurt you. Also, what about the possibility of sexual assaults? I would be willing to risk my life to prevent an intruder/predator from assaulting a loved one.

if your property is "valuable enough to protect by using a weapon" you should reevaluate your life

#2117801 Seriously, fug this state(voter id)

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 29 January 2013 - 12:25 AM

what's the point of that article? that if the democratic party is responsible for it, it's ok? that line of thinking really only works on partisan morons so i can see why you've taken to it

or is it that we shouldn't have to justify laws themselves but instead prove why we shouldn't have them? that sure doesn't sound very "small government" of you.

#2116658 conservatives have their worst week ever

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 27 January 2013 - 11:47 PM

lol another pepaw guy meltdown

#2115905 Is there an agenda behind the anti dual threat, hybrid or read option QBs

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 27 January 2013 - 02:20 AM

Posted Image

iirc it was that fat piece of poo rush limbaugh who "played the race card"

the poo mcnabb caught from dipshits who've prob never even been tackled in their lives was entirely unwarranted

#2115825 conservatives have their worst week ever

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 26 January 2013 - 11:53 PM

They solicited hundreds of sponsors and sought to get 50 million people to sign a goofball petition (written in the style of the Declaration of Independence, with a plethora of "Whereas…"-es... Why do gun people insist on trying to use 18th-century syntax?) against the "tyrannical governments" that were out to take their guns. "Gun Appreciation Day" would also involve gun shows and other local events all over the country, meant as a counter-balance to the candle-toting gun control protests that were springing up over last weekend in anticipation of Obama's inauguration and the rumored plans for new gun legislation.
But even before their excellent idea gets out of the gate, it stalls out, as obnoxious reporters check the list of "Gun Appreciation Day" sponsors and find that the "American Third Position," a group that purports to represent the "unique political interests of White Americans," is one of the event's sponsors.

So now, Political Media has not only decided to hold its Gun Appreciation Event on a holiday meant to celebrate the life of a black leader who was a symbol of nonviolent protest and who was killed by a white man with a gun, it's done so with the financial help of some yahoo white supremacist group. But this doesn't derail the whole thing, as it's of course just an innocent mistake. Political Media kicks "Third Position" out and appropriately issues a statement, saying, "We have removed the group and reiterate this event is not about racial politics, it is about gun politics."

So far, so good, right? Well, then they go and actually hold their "Gun Appreciation Day" rallies all over the country, on Martin Luther King Day. And what happens? Five people get accidentally shot!

You can't make this stuff up. In three separate incidents – one in North Carolina, one in Ohio and one in Indiana – gun-loving real Americans did their darndest to worsen the demographics in the favor of the gun control lobby by blowing themselves away with accidental discharges. They failed, fortunately – all five victims in the three incidents survived – but you literally can't script a worse outcome for a political sideshow meant to highlight Americans' love of the wholesome, safe exercise of gun rights.

Without even taking a position on Obama or his proposed gun law, let me say this: The president, when he makes his case, does not come across like a drooling maniac, like he's pissed off to the point of reaching back, grabbing a frying pan, and belting you across the forehead if you even think about disagreeing with him. He comes across like what he is – a calm, experienced attorney making a rhetorical argument to adults. That, plus a lot of video of little kids' bodies being hauled out of school rooms in suburban Connecticut, can win you a lot of votes with people on the fence on the gun issue.

Then there's Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA. He came out after Obama's speech and gave one of his own at the Weatherby International Hunting and Conservation Awards in Reno, Nevada. In it, LaPierre weaved back and forth like a maniac, his blond forelock heaving, as he blurted out semi-coherent, quasi-grammatical defenses of "absolutism," saying things like "absolutes do exist, it's [sic] the basis of all civilization," and "without those absolutes, democracy decays into nothing more than two wolves and one lamb voting on who to eat for lunch."

So to recap: The gun lobby's response to Obama's inauguration was to organize a "Gun Appreciation Day" on Martin Luther King Day that left five of their own gun-loving members accidentally shot. Then they responded to Obama's inaugural speech by doubling down on the "elitist hypocrite" ad that earned them near-universal condemnation previously. So how could things get worse?

Well, you could have a spokesman for Political Media, which organized "Gun Appreciation Day," tell the Hollywood Reporter that Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained is the perfect argument in support of gun rights. Political Media's Larry Ward said he's considering a "What Would Django Do?" campaign as part of this new rhetorical line they're thinking of trying to sell, particularly to the black community. The idea is, get this, that there wouldn't have been slavery if slaves had had gun rights.

"Django is perfect for what we're trying to do," said Ward, "which is to promote gun rights to minorities."

Hey, dipshit: Before anyone allowed slaves to have guns, they would have had to have other rights, like for instance being considered human beings. Are you people completely stupid? You'd have to have hoovered more coke than even Quentin Tarantino to imagine a world where white slave owners denied black people freedom of movement, denied them education and freedom of speech and dominion over their own bodies, but then for some reason also allowed them to buy guns. Jesus Christ! The whole point of slavery is that slaves didn't have any rights, much less the right to bear arms.

Conservatives could have dealt with this post-Sandy Hook political curveball in a number of ways, from simply shutting up and working quietly behind the scenes to scuttle gun control efforts (that always worked before) to announcing willingness to engage in some extremely mild compromise (like maybe prohibiting schizophrenics from carrying machine guns near kindergartens).

Instead, they decided to piss all over Martin Luther King Day and then shoot themselves by the half-dozen in the process.

Well done, fellas! You're well on your way to solving your demographic problems.


#2112718 Penetta removes military ban on women in combat

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 24 January 2013 - 05:46 AM

Posted Image

#2112690 Penetta removes military ban on women in combat

Posted by GOOGLE RON PAUL on 24 January 2013 - 01:25 AM

No, not at all.
Soldiers in combat arms roles (what's in question here) are pretty dependent on those to their left and right. People in support positions usually do not find themselves in such predicaments and are more apt to sexualized a female.
A female in combat arms will be very protected against sexual predators in a combat zone.

didn't think of it like that and that's comforting if true, though it's frustrating that a lower risk of sexual assault is accompanied by a higher risk of dying in an unnecessary war

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com