If you get a moment, take a look at - REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Thanks! It's been a long time since I glanced at this report. I graduated from UCLA in '61. . .and was very interested in this case. While at UCLA, I had friends (black) who were in the med school and law school - and had no assistance with 'quotas', etc. Davis is those years, was not considered a 'star' med school in California. The goal, as stated in the findings - was to include more minorities in the 'profession'. However, there were many of us who felt that ALL disadvantaged should be given special consideration - regardless of 'race'. The difficulty was in the assumption that a 'white male' needed no additional assistance - and was not considered disadvantaged. Unfortunately, Mr. Bakke did not do as well on his interviews as others - hence a second rejection. Most minorities who applied for any graduate school in those days realized that they had to be heads and shoulders above the 'average' acceptance score even to be considered . .and there were those who made the grade. Moving to the present - we're finding that those minorities who qualify for the California graduate programs are being given complete scholarships from the Ivy League schools. The undergraduate population at UCLA was LESS THAN what it was in 1957! Reasons? Better offers from other 'top' schools; disgust with the assumption that they only made 'it' because of the melanin of their skin; etc.; renaissance of the popularity of graduating from historically 'Black' schools. Last year, we were able to get 300+ African American students accepted at UCLA. You are probably aware of the percentage rate of the freshman that 'don't make it'. The Black Alumni Association at UCLA is working with those students to make sure that they use their God-given ability to meet the high standards of UCLA.

Did you read Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Reading the 'truth' of his statement is difficult today in 2008. Living in a 'multicultural' dorm in the '50's, and realizing that although those in my generation and the generation of my parents and grandparents had suffered legal 'discrimination' - I was aware that there were members of the so-called majority/'better' race who also suffered from poor education, poverty, etc. - even if it was not intentional. However, the doctrine of 'white supremacy' and the despicable acts of the south made the victims who were white 'invisible'. In the 1970's - I applauded Marshall. He was dealing in the reality of the era. Thanks.

Can you help an old lady out? I would love to read it.

Open my link above and scroll down a "good" distance.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Friends, countrymen, etc. listen carefully! It isn’t all about slavery. It is the legacy of slavery; (Jim Crow; segregated facilities; lack of the right to vote until the 1960’s) – that has caused the lingering resentment among black folks – and the many whites that worked side by side with minorities to get these wrongs changed feel this resentment. The younger generation is moving forward. Not ALL blacks are victims of poverty – and many minorities have worked against the obstacles of the legacy of slavery to achieve great heights. Not ALL black children suffer from poor education. (In fact, all American children are being shortchanged – and public education MUST be improved for ALL Americans.) The black middle class is growing – and taking more and more responsibility to help those who are caught in the systemic march to poverty. Many American citizens are taking the responsibility to help with this issue – helping poor whites; poor American Indians, poor people period! Isn’t that the American / Christian way? Do unto others. . . .Etc.

The black middle class is growing – and taking more and more responsibility to help those who are caught in the systemic march to poverty.

This is a little off the topic but, I've just GOT to ask this question. Why are middle class black people societally obligated to "reach back" and help poor black people out? I don't see white people reaching back to the trailer parks to help poor white people out. And other than that tv show, "My Name Is Earl", which pokes fun at tralier trash, I don't see white people elevating ignorant trailer trash to be a lifestyle to which their children should aspire. And yet, for example, Fool Rahim Grant's mama was so proud of her wannabe rap thug son that, upon his arrest for an incident with a gun, she told the press that he's a rapper.

Yes, we all have a biblical obligation to be our brother's keeper, help the poor and to protect the vulnerable. But why does it seem like black people who have worked hard to get out of poverty, been good students, didn't spend on having the fancy manicure every week, don't put themselves in hock for depreciating assets and don't let any excuse keep them from climbing higher, why are they obligated to help people whose dream is nothing more than having their pants hang off their butt, speak poorly and to be king of the parking lot with their loud car stereo system?

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Excellent question. Citizens who are helping those less fortunate are not doing it because of the melanin in their skin, but because of their biblical obligation - as you stated. No one is OBLIGATED to do a thing - but what their values direct them to do. Thank you for acknowledging that there is a 'black' middle class. You are incorrect in assuming that there is not a movement in this country to assist the poor regardless of their color. (Note Rev. Rick Warren’s church) Because I stated that the 'black' middle class is taking more responsibility - in no way means that I feel that they are 'obligated'. It has been my experience since the 50's that 'blacks' have never been alone in helping 'black's. . . and if history were correctly taught - we would know that it is the American way to assist those who are oppressed. Blacks and whites have been working together in these United States since the first African was brought to the shores of the 'new' America. My point in my earlier contribution was that today's 'black', who never experienced slavery, - would see the apology as an awareness of the legacy of 'slavery' - which some in this discussion seem to forget. There are many alive today who experienced Jim Crow, segregation, etc. - which I consider the legacy of slavery.

I really respect your response for two reasons.

First, you tacitly acknowledge that Americans of every race, creed and color have survived because they have had to rely on each other. The Civil Rights Movement would not have gained national attention unless white "liberals" (like Andrew Goodman and Mickey Schwerner) came to the South and laid their lives on the line for black people. And poor white people in the post-Civil War South would not have survived without recently-freed black people staying and sharing their knowlege and skills to re-build the South. Once we stop focusing on the subsequent failures of other people to remain true to their better nature and realize that, no matter which community goes down the proverbial toilet first, we all end up in the same place, eventually, we will be the Americans that our national heritage tells the world we can be.

The second reason I respect your answer is that you have explained the difference between a historical event and the legacy that flows from it. I mean, there are no Egyptian masters nor Israeli slaves who are alive today. But the legacy of that relationship is, undoubtedly felt in Middle Eastern politics, today. Similarly, no one who survived the Trail of Tears nor anyone who forced those people to march into the wilderness is alive. But, there is no denying that Native Americans continue to deal with the legacy of that historical event. So, it seems to me that an apology for the historical event is at least an attempt to acknowledge the legacy of that event.

Good on ya'!

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Right back at ya! Thanks for broadening my response to include the Trail of Tears and the fiasco in the Middle East. An apology won't hurt anyone . . and may help to build the bridge towards one nation, one world under God.

The problem is that many people will not vote for Obama because of his race. I know such otherwise nice, reasonable people and I am sure you do too. Just ask you friends if you do not believe this.

Obama did not throw out "the race card." The McCain campaign is making that claim so those who harbor racist views can vote against Obama because of his race and feel OK about their vote.

"The problem is that many people will not vote for Obama because of his race."

People will not vote for Obama because he's black or because he's white?

This drawing and quartering is rather silly.

That's all true no matter whether it's right or not. It's also true on the other side where some will be voting for Obama solely because of his race. It goes both ways.

Considering how Gore and Kerry both lost the white vote by 10 and 17% margins respectively, Obama has quite an uphill climb ahead even with record-setting voter registration drives. That is why I've been saying for some time now how the polls are almost meaningless and McCain is going to win in a landslide with the electoral college. Then, the aftermath post-election day is going to be seriously ugly.

Of course, African-Americans are going to vote overwhelmingly for Obama because they are proud to see someone of their race running for President. They are not unlike the Irish and Catholics who voted for Kennedy.

But when the Republican Party is quick to cry that the Democrats are "playing the race card," there is reason to be suspicious. The Republican Party has a history of racism which cannot be ignored. The Republican Party in southern states is built on the white opposition to the civil rights laws of the 1960's. Ronald Reagan gave his first post-convention speech in 1980 in Philadelphia, MS promoting "states rights" which southern whites understood to mean opposition to civil rights enforcement. John McCain opposed the MLK Federal holiday which put him in league with some of the most reactionary forces in the country. Whatever you might think of the idea of this holiday, opposition to it came from the same elements in the Republican Party that had opposed all civil rights efforts.

So, I think many of us have a lot to prove to show that we have overcome the racism in our past. And it is not a simple matter of saying--well African-Americans will vote for Obama because of his race so it is OK for me to oppose him because of his race.

And if McCain wins, I do not think it will get ugly as you think. Democrats will reluctantly accept the election results (as we did in 2000) and work toward the next election.

Uh, 'scuse me but the Dims have always been the racists. Which party voted in Johnson's Civil Rights Act? Which recent Presidential candidate's Father was against signing it? And to which party does the only (so-called "ex") member of the KKK belong? And these current Southern "Republicans" -- how long ago was it that the South was controlled by Democrats?

Nor will they "reluctantly accept the election results" unless they win. They'll most certainly have some scheme in mind and lawyers dispersed to the places they most feel they can manipulate, like Ohio. Accepted the 2000 results? Yeah, right -- you still hear the moonbats squeaking about Bush being "selected". If the Obamination loses all we'll hear for years is it was because he's Black -- can't possibly be because of his associations, lack of experience or the fact that he's just a charismatic, empty suit.

Yeah, yeah, I know the history of the Repubs, , MLK debate, dixiecrats, states rights(which backfired on anyone hoping for such under Reagan)as well as many southern Dems being identical, etc. but I don't see what that has to do with McCain-Obama because the southern states are solid Republican until proven otherwise, despite the majority of black population residing in the southern part of the US. They are spread out fairly evenly in those states, though, so their clout as block is reduced somewhat.

McCain wants to make race an issue, obviously. So, it is in his best interests to make the first charge of "someone is using race as an issue!" to put it on the table so his campaign can subsequently use it themselves and accuse the other side of starting it. Principled? Not at all, but that's the politics that the Repubs have used successfully in the past and they'll keep doing it until they lose trying it. They already know Obama's support in some key swing states is very shaky because whites overwhelmingly went with Shillary and they are going to try and exploit that. The Repubs are pretty confident that race trumps the local economy in places like Ohio and Michigan and I think they are correct in that assessment.

You stated "McCain wants to make race an issue, obviously. So, it is in his best interests to make the first charge of "someone is using race as an issue!" to put it on the table so his campaign can subsequently use it themselves and accuse the other side of starting it. "

With all due respect, are you daft? Barack Obama has been the one to bring the color of his skin into the Presidential race. I'll give you 2 quotes.

1. "It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy," Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

By the way, who is "they"? It's not the Republicans. It's the straw men that Barack Obama has created in his delusional mind to tell everyone that the Republicans are nothing but a bunch of bible-thumping, gun toting racists.

2. “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

These two statements by Barack Obama are disgraceful. He played the race card.

This racial nonsense is so stupid.

Black President is fine.
White President is fine.

Socialist, inexperienced, non-principled President is not fine.
Experienced leader and great American is fine with me.

Can it be more simple?

A president who is black, instead of a black president?

Barak Obama has already accomplished a lot, by being in the position that he is. He is anything but inexperienced. Socialist? Social Security celebrated it's 73rd anniversary, and Republican opposition to it celebrated its 72nd anniversary. Not much new with that accusation. Non-principled? The world is begging to be spared from the modern conservative's principles.

John McCain's own party does not like him, and top military people have openly expressed their worries about his temper. Who is he leading, and where is he leading them to?

"Whatever you practice is what you will be good at".