| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Statement From Microsoft in Response to the Supreme Court's Ruling In the University of Michigan Affirmative Action Case | |
|
||
| Time: 12:51 EST/17:51 GMT | News Source: Microsoft | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
"Microsoft applauds the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the University's right to include race and other factors in its admissions process. We hope this ruling will help preserve the ability of our nation's institutions of higher education to develop the diverse talent many companies need to cultivate a multi-cultural workforce. At Microsoft, we believe that the ability to recruit such a diverse workforce is critical to our success in today's global marketplace, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with the University of Michigan and other institutions." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:44:59 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 182 (208.224.173.101) at 6/24/2003 12:59:34 PM |
| Serious question: Why is Microsoft commenting on this? I don't see the advantage that they would have in this. Perhaps someone can explain it? |
| #2 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 6/24/2003 1:00:25 PM |
| This is the WORST affirmative action taken that I can remember of the past 10+ years. |
| #3 By 20 (216.34.170.140) at 6/24/2003 1:17:13 PM |
|
They said that the undergrad school CANNOT use race as a factor for deciding on candidates, however, the law school can.
I'm not sure how that promotes diversity, however, since most of the people that go there, even the people who happen to have darker skin coloring, come from upper-income homes with very similar situations. Adding color to a mix doesn't really make anything diverse. What's unfortunate is that the S.C. basically said that racial discrimination is O.K. as long as it promotes the advancement of minorities. I'm not that's necessarily a good thing, but I guess I can see their point. If I had to pick something I disliked least about this decision and A.A. in general is that the Black community have allowed themselves to be victims over and over again and fall prey to the entitlement creep that the Democrats keep hoisting on the populace to ensure votes from dependent poor people. And what's worse is that the leaders of the Community are willing accomplices on the payroll of the DNC and tow the party line. Fortunately, though, it seems that these "leaders" are loosing credibility fast. Where is Jesse Jackson? I think everyone knows he's pretty much a fraud now. And I think a lot of dirt is going to come out about Sharpton here pretty soon that will invalidate any credibility he may have had up until now. A leader needs to stand up and say, "You know what, white establishment? We don't need your handouts and your 'affirmative action' 'help' anymore. We can succeed and pass tests and achieve on our own in our own way without any involvement from you". Clarence Thomas hit the nail on the head when he said, "The Constitution does not, however, tolerate institutional devotion to the status quo in admissions policies when such devotion [to diversity] ripens into racial discrimination." And then finished it off with, "Racial discrimination is not a permissible solution to the self-inflicted wounds of this elitist admissions policy." Thomas recognizes that Black people don't need help from White Elitists who think it's their job to "help" the "downtrodden" and "poor" Black people. Black people need to rise up on their own and establish themselves as a political, economic, academic, and social/cultural force in this nation and not continue down the downward spiral of entitlement dependence on liberal social slavery programs. |
| #4 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 6/24/2003 1:28:32 PM |
|
Perhaps we should let organizations decide what factors they use to admit people rather than have the government mandate it one way or another.
If I don't want to admit/hire/play with/etc somebody because of their color/sex/oder/weight/shirt size/etc, then that's my decision. If my decision is based on faulty premises, then sobeit. I will suffer as a result. If U of M feels that in order to help rectify hundreds of years of government enforced racism by given extra help to the victims of that racism, then that should be their right. If they feel the opposite, then that should be their right too. Whether or not it works is orthogonal to whether or not they should have the right to do it. |
| #5 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 6/24/2003 2:27:12 PM |
|
If over 50% of blacks are not graduating high school, then the goverment needs to focus on the problem earlier than at the college level. If you get 75% or more graduating, you will have a higher college enrollment and acceptance.
Disqualifying someone even though they meet all the school requirements, and yet NOT allowing them to attend in order to meet a QUOTA for a minority who might be less qualified is NOT what I would call fair. I also agree with you RMD, 100%. |
| #6 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 6/24/2003 3:11:01 PM |
| Well said JWM |
| #7 By 182 (208.224.173.101) at 6/24/2003 4:00:35 PM |
|
Historically, you need 3 things for high crime rates:
Poverty Population density (this is obvious, and related to the first item) Lack of moral standards If you can solve any of those problems, you can reduce crime. The Government obviously has an interest in reducing crime. It is, after all, their primary reason for existence. You can't address moral standards easily without running afoul of the Constitution. That's out. We address population denisty by addressing poverty. We address poverty by STOP TAXING THE POOR. Not hard to figure out, but some people seem bound and determined to keep doing it. But the key to economic prosperity on a wide scale is EDUCATION. That's why this is such a big deal. We can address poverty, and therefore, crime, in a particular segment of the population by addressing their educational opportunities. In a very real and practical sense, this benefits everyone. When was the last time you got mugged by a PhD? |
| #8 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 6/24/2003 4:32:12 PM |
| I wouldn't stop taxing the poor. I would make a flat tax for everyone across the board. The rich shouldn't be penalized for being successful, and the poor shouldn't be penalized for not being successful. Flat tax for everyone. Same Same. |
| #9 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 6/24/2003 4:48:27 PM |
|
#12 - I assume you've read "Capitalism and Freedom" by Friedman. He loves the flat tax. I, however, do not. A flat tax would harm the poor a great deal.
In order to maintain current spending levels (don't start... that's a seperate argument), a flat tax would have to be much higher than the tax the bottom 20% currently pays. Of course, it would be a lot less than the top 20% currently pays, which is why many conservatives are all for it. As conservatives are so fond of pointing out, the top 20% contributes 60%+ of all tax revenue. By decreasing what the top 20% pays, you offload that on to the rest of the people. I'm in the process of writing a response (almost page by page, in fact) to Friedman's social policies, and to some extent, economic policies. (Don't worry, I don't begin to try and question some of his economic assertions - he has a Nobel Prize in Economics, I certainly don't.) Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't... at any rate, I'll let you know when I post it on my web site. I'm about 40% done at this point. #11 - "Historically, you need 3 things for high crime rates..." I agree you need poverty and high population density, but I think that "moral standards" have little to do with it. People have the luxury of "high moral standards" when they have food in their belly and a roof over their head. "When was the last time you got mugged by a PhD?" That's a false comparison. It suggests that because PhD's rarely mug somebody, the less education you have the more likely you are to commit crime. While I'm sure there may be a correlation between the two, it is not a causal relationship. I completely agree that education tends to reduce crime, but only because education tends to reduce poverty, thereby allow the luxury of "high moral standards". |
| #10 By 182 (208.224.173.101) at 6/24/2003 5:00:24 PM |
|
In principle, I agree with you about the flat tax. However, I think there should be a floor to it. Income under X amount should be subject to NO TAX. We can debate what X is, but any tax cut needs to start with those at the BOTTOM of the pile. I love tax cuts. I think the government spends way too much on a lot of things. But give tax relief where it will be most used, starting at the bottom.
High moral standards have prevented crime in situations where poverty and high population density would otherwise lead to it. Jewish ghettos through the ages are an excellent example. Whether the morality in question is "sticking together" or "fear of hell" or some other variant, it still is a factor. "That's a false comparison. It suggests that because PhD's rarely mug somebody, the less education you have the more likely you are to commit crime. While I'm sure there may be a correlation between the two, it is not a causal relationship. I completely agree that education tends to reduce crime, but only because education tends to reduce poverty" Waitasecond. You just contradicted yourself. The example given is that PhD's don't tend to mug people. Why? Because they have the ability to get far more money legitimately. So the example is quite valid, even on its face. Further, you assume that the statement indicated a causality between PhD and "not crime". It can also be seen that they have a common cause. "the less education you have the more likely you are to commit crime." "I completely agree that education tends to reduce crime" Am I the only one who sees the contradiction there? |
| #11 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 6/24/2003 5:01:48 PM |
|
Hi RMD,
I don't *can* myself as a conservative, or any other "specific". I have open view points in all aspects of politics. I am 100% for flat tax, and I have done a few projects for my different economic courses at the University of WI that dispute the findings *similar* to that you have posted here. I don't know if I can dig up those papers or not. I have them saved on CD-R, and I have about 1000+ CDR's unlabeled! I will try to send it to you one day for the heck of it. |
| #12 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/24/2003 6:39:09 PM |
|
AWBrain - "Disqualifying someone even though they meet all the school requirements, and yet NOT allowing them to attend in order to meet a QUOTA for a minority who might be less qualified is NOT what I would call fair. "
Sometimes life isn't fair. So it's ok that we give preference to someone who plays football? Isn't that discrimination against people without physical ability? At Yale University, preference is given to sons and daughters of alumni. Is this fair? Doesn't that reward current generations due to past practices of discrimination? I don't know. I guess I honestly really do not care about this issue. Perhaps because my scores were such that I would have had no difficulty being accepted to Michigan out of high school had I applied. Perhaps it's also because I don't fear people of other cultures gaining power and status in America. Years ago back when I was a conservative like daz I used to find these concepts outrageous. But then I looked inward upon myself and asked the question "Why?". What I found not just in myself, but in the entire culture that promotes such outrage was fear... fear of no longer being the dominant race. Anyway, I found the SCOTUS decision to be fair and reasonable. The issue is not an easy one. How to fix the inequity created by 150+ years of institutionalized racism, without just giving away favor out of some form of guilt. I do find it interesting that Justice Thomas voted against this, given as how he benefited tremendously from affirmative action. |
| #13 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 6/24/2003 7:43:11 PM |
|
I would love to see more minorities in college. But letting them in with lower standards is not benefitting anyone.
In fact, I am beginning to believe that liberals want affirmative action so much because of their elitist, racist (keep blacks down by keeping them dependent upon social entitlement programs to placate them and make them dependent so they keep voting Democrat) agenda. If you produce a bunch of black college graduates that are completely worthless (because they were excused through grade school, jr. high, high school and now college), they hope the popular white opinion will be that no matter how much free education you give blacks, they still can't be educated. What's most sad about this is that black 'leaders' like Sharpton and Jackson are all too willing to sell their brothers and sisters up the river to this agenda. This is right out of the early colonial British handbook. Keep the religious and cultural leaders of the natives well fed and with well lined pockets and you don't have any native problems. The white liberal establishment is following that with Blacks TO THE 'T'. It's also interesting that they've managed to get the minorities to turn on their own when they choose to speak up. See what happened to Thomas when he stood up as a conservative? He was tared and feathered in the press. The liberals hurled all sorts of false charges at him and even made up a sex scandal (Anita Hill) to try to prevent him from making it to the supreme court. Has any Democrat every appointed a black to the S. Court? Reagan did. Has any Democrat had a black SecState? NSA? As far as Soda's assinine comments about Thomas and affirmative action, it's another liberal myth about how the former EEOC chair tried to take credit for his accomplishments by hiring Thomas and saying that it was affirmative action in action. He couldn't have been a bigger racist/biggot and couldn't have cut Thomas' legs off any lower. Thomas turned the EEOC around and stopped the racial motivated process of reverse discrimintation and helped to establish the EEOC as an actually EQUAL organization, rather than just a black-advancement program. Liberals don't seem to understand the 'equal' in 'equal'. They think 'equal' means punishing whites for the racism of their forefathers. Fortunately there are intelligent conservatives like myself and Thomas to help put down those ideologically flawed and fundamentally assinine notions. Remember, the logical conclusion to liberalism and socialism is what we see in North Korea right now. |
| #14 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/24/2003 8:21:10 PM |
|
Time for my weekly shredding of daz I guess...
"The liberals hurled all sorts of false charges at him and even made up a sex scandal (Anita Hill) to try to prevent him from making it to the supreme court. " You mean they made up a sex scandal like Paula Jones? Incredible!? Who would ever do that!? Oh... wait a minute! It's curious, have you read what David Brock has to say about the Thomas affair? You remember Brock, he's the author that you get most of your facts from... wrote "The Real Anita Hill" called her a slut and a nut. A few years later he found out that all of Anita Hill's allegations were in fact correct. That was one of the pieces of information that he reveals in 'Blinded by the Right' which caused him to begin questioning his blind devotion to conservatism. Oh yeah, I keep forgetting you haven't read that book because you are afraid of the truth. "Has any Democrat every appointed a black to the S. Court? Reagan did." Scalia... Kennedy... O'Connor... Bork... Ginsburg... Which one are you referring to? I can't think of any other nominees. Bork was defeated because of his involvement in Watergate. Ginsburg for apparently smoking marijuana(never understood that one, but it was the height of the Nancy Reagan drug war) Thomas was appointed by Bush I, to replace Thurgood Marshall who had been appointed by Kennedy. So daz loses points twice in that statement. "He couldn't have been a bigger racist/biggot and couldn't have cut Thomas' legs off any lower. " Forgive me, I thought Affirmative Action meant giving people jobs they aren't qualified for based solely on their race. I was referring to his SCOTUS appointment, I was unaware of any ineptitude at the EEOC. "Fortunately there are intelligent conservatives like myself and Thomas to help put down those ideologically flawed and fundamentally assinine notions. " The use of the word 'intelligent' most certainly does not belong in that sentence. The more you post, the more abundantly clear that is becoming. |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/24/2003 8:23:43 PM |
|
Interesting article off Washington Post...
Apparently America opinion agrees with sodablue, not daz http://www.msnbc.com/news/930509.asp?0cl=c3 It's too bad people like daz are so out of touch with America. |
| #16 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 6/25/2003 2:21:36 AM |
|
It is a sad day that the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution can be shunted aside without the consent of the people.
What is sadder is the ongoing questioning, now to go on for what . . . 25 more years (if OConnor can be believed), of non minority college students regarding their minority college student counterparts as less capable and their enrollment as a gift and not earned regardless of whether it is true or not. By the way, this is and will continue to carry over into the workplace. The justicies had a chance to put all college bound young men and women in our country, regardless of race, religion, etc., on a equal footing and they blew it. We need justices that uphold the constitution and not write new law from the bench. Also, my wife, born in Mexico City, Mexico, is dismayed, offended and hurt by the action of these justices. Our sons have competed and earned, on merit, the right to the best colleges in our country and in the case of our older son, one of the best medical schools as well. This denigrates their hard work and sacrrifice, those minorities that are in college now and those to follow in the future. |
| #17 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 6/25/2003 1:57:44 PM |
|
#19: Apparently America opinion agrees with sodablue, not daz
http://www.msnbc.com/news/930509.asp?0cl=c3 Do you regularly speak of yourself in the 3rd person, or did you do that to make it seem like you were someone else so casual readers would think there was more than yourself agreeing with you? Either way, it doesn't effect how wrong you are. It's interesting to note that whenever liberals are confronted with facts and logic, they typically resort to the "look! all these other people agree with me, I MUST be right!" All I can say is thank God our government isn't built around popular opinion, otherwise Tom Cruise would be President and Krusty the Clown would be Emporer. We have a REPRESENTATIVE government because by and large the majority of people don't have a clue what's going on and are motivated and swayed easily by popular biased media. I agree, on the front, A.A. sounds pretty good, but when you really look at it, you realize, it's not good for anyone and it just makes Blacks out to be this hapless/helpless group that needs the benevolent help of us Great White People. It's too bad people like daz are so out of touch with America. It's too bad people like sodablue are so out of touch with the Consitution and what's best for the country As far as the Paula Jones thing, there were witnesses who have acknowledged such behavior. Also, prior and post examples lend credence to Paula Jones, Junita Broderick, Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, shall I continue? The list is quite long. Thomas, OTOH, has never had any other sexual harrassment allegations charged against it. Clintons antagonists were of the same party and were usually supporters, Anita Hill was a Democrat shill propped up by the DNC. If you can't see the obvious Soda, how can anyone take you seriously? |
| #18 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 6/25/2003 4:17:07 PM |
|
#23 - "It's too bad people like sodablue are so out of touch with the Consitution and what's best for the country"
If you were actually a fan of the Constitution, you certainly wouldn't be a Republican. Nor would you be a Democrat for that matter. Both parties routinely crap on the Constitution whenever they feel it will get them more votes. At any rate, the Constitution is a living document... while difficult to change, the Founding Fathers always intended it to be molded to fit the times. |
| #19 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 6/25/2003 5:17:47 PM |
|
#25: I don't disagree with you.
I'm well aware of the Constitution and how it can change, but the Supreme Court should not be the body to enact that change from the bench without legislative involvement. They have thrown out the 14th Amendment and stated that racial discrimination is OK as long as it promotes "diversity", whatever that is supposed to mean. I'm sure it'll be abused in as many cases as possible. |
| #20 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/25/2003 10:58:05 PM |
|
daz - LOL!
"It's interesting to note that whenever liberals are confronted with facts and logic, they typically resort to the "look! all these other people agree with me, I MUST be right!" " Two things. First I'm not a liberal. Second, you have yet to post anything remotely resembling facts much less logic. "It's too bad people like sodablue are so out of touch with the Consitution and what's best for the country " LOL! Speaking of lack of logic. "As far as the Paula Jones thing, there were witnesses who have acknowledged such behavior. " You mean the Arkansas State Troopers that your side paid to come out and claim this? At least one of them later admitted that it was a lie, he was just doing it for the money. Don't believe me? The name Mellon-Scaife was on the checks that cleared, the money chain was plainly evident. "Also, prior and post examples lend credence to Paula Jones, Junita Broderick, Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, shall I continue? The list is quite long. " Please do. I love it when you ramble off at the mouth about things you know absolutely nothing about making yourself look like an idiot. Why don't you bring up Vince Foster again. Oh yeah, and Travelgate! OOH! Now that was a real scandal. Oh yeah, or the FBI files... ohhhh... oh wait! No there was that old accusation that China was running the show. Isn't it strange how not one single accusation against Clinton or his administration ever amounted to an indictment due to lack of evidence? Almost seems like maybe the stories were fabricated and politically motivated. Yeah yeah, I know... daz will write "Sodablue is just a moron! He doesn't understand the level of secretness that bastards like Bill Clinton will go to to hide the evidnece." You mean like how Sadam Hussein hid all those weapons from our troops? "If you can't see the obvious Soda, how can anyone take you seriously? " I don't know. I really don't care. What comforts me is just making you look like a maroon. It's kind of fun, and it would happen less often if you'd stop preaching politics here. That's really my only purpose here, to keep pointing out the factual errors and logic flaws in your diatribes in the hopes of pissing you off such that you'll just shut up. |
| #21 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/25/2003 11:03:41 PM |
|
daz - "I'm well aware of the Constitution and how it can change, but the Supreme Court should not be the body to enact that change from the bench without legislative involvement."
You mean like overriding Article I, Section 4 because it's inconvenient to their favorite political party? "They have thrown out the 14th Amendment and stated that racial discrimination is OK as long as it promotes "diversity", whatever that is supposed to mean. I'm sure it'll be abused in as many cases as possible. " Oh you mean like how the courts declared segregation illegal and a violation of the 14th Amendment. Come on daz, fess up... That's the kind of "activism" you despise. Those god damn liberals and their pushing of modern values down our throats! Let's go back to the good old days when people knew their place and didn't demand more! Whatever, punk. And you have the gaul to claim you support American values. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:45:00 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
