posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:20 AM
I just watched Bush taking questions from a diversity panel of minority reporters and besides being struck by how many ways the man can say 'some of
my best friends are black' :shk: I was really shocked by just how much the guy supports a very unique brand of Affirmative Action and even quotas.
I know, I know. He disavows the RNC code words of "AA" and "quotas" but tell me how his "Texas style" diversity plan is any different?
He talked about what he did to (I mean "in") Texas by requiring all Universities to take the top 10% of graduates from each high school no matter
what their relative grades. This was to predominantly promote a sort of geographic diversity (read as QUOTAS) allowing children from poor
communities (read as MINORITIES) the equal chance at admission (read as PRIORITY OVER MORE QUALIFIED KIDS WITH HIGHER GRADES).
So instead of just applying an effort to actively recruit minorites in proportion to the population, and when coming up short giving some weight to a
less represented minority among other equally qualified applicants (which is the real way AA works, not the way Rush Limbaugh told you), he FORCES
state colleges to accept the first 500 applicants from a predominantly black high school of 5,000 that may be several hundred points lower on average
in SAT scores from the second or third or fourth tier of 500 applicants from another school in a predominantly white neighborhood.
This is NOT what I keep hearing conservatives say they want at all. Comments?
Anyone defend this or see it as any different, better or worse than AA? It's the same thing in my opinon, just a slightly different shell game trying
to hide the impact and make the constituency think he's not for quotas. But it's the same thing! It's not merit based at all. Though it's not
specifically based on race, it's based on your address. Same thing in most towns!