California Bill 185, should it pass?

[B2L]

Well as you can see, I'm not from California. Although I just wanted to get some opinions, do you think the California Senate Bill 185 should be allowed to pass? Personally, I applaud the students who are running this bake sale. This bill should not pass, or even come close to it for that matter. (All my person opinion.)

Shawn Lewis, president of the Berkeley College Republicans, which is hosting the "Increase Diversity Bake Sale" at a campus plaza, said the event is intended to oppose any policy that treats one racial group different from another. The bake sale, which will be held just yards away from a phone bank event urging people to call Brown's office in support of the S.B. 185, will charge all white men $2 for cookies and other baked goods, while Asian men will be charged $1.50, Latino men will pay $1, black men 75 cents and Native Americans 25 cents. All women will receive 25 cents off those prices.

Read more: Controversial Bake Sale Highlights Debate On Bill Allowing California Colleges To Consider Race, Gender | Fox News ​

​

What happened to being equal?

 

[Frisco]

Well, they're trying to make a point about the perceived disparity in the U.S. wrt how/if race and gender affect one's successes, etc.

The debate about the disparity in the prices will serve their purpose.

 

[lunatic59]

(My apologies for anyone thinking the following is anything but politically incorrect satire)


They should take it one step further ... White men will be charged $2 per cookie plus a $7 dessert tax, $3 obesity prevention fund and $1.50 class action retainer fee in case there is law suit involving any cookie sold within California since becoming a state. Asian men will be charge $1.50 for counterfeit cookies. Latino men will pay $1 to have cookies smuggled to them from across the border while black men will be subsidized the $.75 necessary to buy any cookies they couldn't steal. Native Americans will pay $.25 and be given a voucher but actually never receive their cookie. All women will receive $.25 off those prices and be given a smaller cookie as well as half of all the men's cookies in the settlement. Children will be given free cookies without restriction, but charged $40,000/year for four years starting at age 18 for intense physical therapy necessary to work off the cookies.



.. or we could start behaving like the evolved society we have deluded ourselves into believing that we are.

 

[RiverOfIce]

I honestly see where the bill is coming from, but it is just a little miss guided. They need to write a bill that reveals the economic status of the students high/middle schools. But honestly if they want to help the "minorities" then they should base it on income, both parents and child.

 

[Frisco]

Race and gender issues have a way of igniting and flaring up at irregular but frequent intervals in American society. They've done that several times in my lifetime.

With race it was usually because of a quite visible event which highlighted the almost apartheid atmosphere in black ghettos: a police beating and subsequent riot, for example.

With gender it was almost always an organized event, a march or demonstration with feminists, female and male alike, making speeches about disparity in hiring, wages and roles in the workplace and at home, etc.

The women seem to have made bigger gains over the years than minorities with regard to discrimination, as I think back. But disparities are still around, especially having to do with promotions and wages in management positions, with a few notable and visible exceptions here and there.

If there were no issues, then we'd be seeing and hearing no bills that have to be passed from either side of thinking. Something is still amiss.

 

[batgeek]

(My apologies for anyone thinking the following is anything but politically incorrect satire)


They should take it one step further ... White men will be charged $2 per cookie plus a $7 dessert tax, $3 obesity prevention fund and $1.50 class action retainer fee in case there is law suit involving any cookie sold within California since becoming a state. Asian men will be charge $1.50 for counterfeit cookies. Latino men will pay $1 to have cookies smuggled to them from across the border while black men will be subsidized the $.75 necessary to buy any cookies they couldn't steal. Native Americans will pay $.25 and be given a voucher but actually never receive their cookie. All women will receive $.25 off those prices and be given a smaller cookie as well as half of all the men's cookies in the settlement. Children will be given free cookies without restriction, but charged $40,000/year for four years starting at age 18 for intense physical therapy necessary to work off the cookies.



.. or we could start behaving like the evolved society we have deluded ourselves into believing that we are.

best post i have ever read on this forum.

 

[B2L]

I honestly see where the bill is coming from, but it is just a little miss guided. They need to write a bill that reveals the economic status of the students high/middle schools. But honestly if they want to help the "minorities" then they should base it on income, both parents and child.

I don't exactly agree with what they are doing, since in my opinion they shouldn't base anything off of race. There are underprivileged families of every race, so why should it cost more for a person that has a different color of skin. If we truly want our society to progress we need to set race aside.

On the otherhand I completely agree with you, if they decide to write a bill to help "minorities" it should be based off of both the child, and parents income.

 

[RiverOfIce]

I don't exactly agree with what they are doing, since in my opinion they shouldn't base anything off of race. There are underprivileged families of every race, so why should it cost more for a person that has a different color of skin. If we truly want our society to progress we need to set race aside.

On the otherhand I completely agree with you, if they decide to write a bill to help "minorities" it should be based off of both the child, and parents income.

The bill or the cupcake people. I was talking about the cupcake people. They are trying to help people buy focusing on the poor. I agree with that, but the are really doing it wrong with basing it off race and sex. They should just base it off income.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Well as you can see, I'm not from California. Although I just wanted to get some opinions, do you think the California Senate Bill 185 should be allowed to pass? Personally, I applaud the students who are running this bake sale. This bill should not pass, or even come close to it for that matter. (All my person opinion.)


[/COLOR][/LEFT]

What happened to being equal?

Equality is one way these days. I also applaud the bake sale.

 

[Bob Maxey]

(My apologies for anyone thinking the following is anything but politically incorrect satire)


They should take it one step further ... White men will be charged $2 per cookie plus a $7 dessert tax, $3 obesity prevention fund and $1.50 class action retainer fee in case there is law suit involving any cookie sold within California since becoming a state. Asian men will be charge $1.50 for counterfeit cookies. Latino men will pay $1 to have cookies smuggled to them from across the border while black men will be subsidized the $.75 necessary to buy any cookies they couldn't steal. Native Americans will pay $.25 and be given a voucher but actually never receive their cookie. All women will receive $.25 off those prices and be given a smaller cookie as well as half of all the men's cookies in the settlement. Children will be given free cookies without restriction, but charged $40,000/year for four years starting at age 18 for intense physical therapy necessary to work off the cookies.

.. or we could start behaving like the evolved society we have deluded ourselves into believing that we are.

You certainly have earned your Forum nickname, Sir lunatic59. I tip my tinfoil covered propeller beanie to you, good show.

 

[fesereL]

I was able to read an article related to this issue, please allow to share it here. SB 185 is a bill currently being reviewed in the California senate. The law would enable non-academic components to be looked into in all college admissions. Though the law is intended to increase diversity in schooling, some are concerned it will also increase discrimination. Article resource: California political debate spawns racist bake sale.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I was able to read an article related to this issue, please allow to share it here. SB 185 is a bill currently being reviewed in the California senate. The law would enable non-academic components to be looked into in all college admissions. Though the law is intended to increase diversity in schooling, some are concerned it will also increase discrimination. Article resource: California political debate spawns racist bake sale.

Take no offence, but your take on the bill is rather curious and it is hard to follow. You say, "The law would enable non-academic components to be looked into in all college admissions." Non-academic components? Not sure what that actually means (yes I do, actually). So, and again, no offence, but this is what the bill is designed to do:

SB 185 will authorize the University of California and the California State University to consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions.

This is fine for minorities, but what if a school decides to consider white males born in America above blacks, women, and Hispanics? They would be deemed racist, yet if the bill passes, that is exactly what the bill is designed to do. It is a racist bill and it brings back affirmative action.

If you are a minority, the fact that you are a minority is a major factor in your admission. What should be considered is your ability to pay as well as your academic record, not race. College is not a right and perhaps if you can't pass the admission requirements, that is on you for not buckling down in JR High/High school and planning for the day when your records start to matter.

 

[RiverOfIce]

...that is on you for not buckling down in JR High/High school and planning for the day when your records start to matter.

Sigh. The number one factor in grades in jr and high school if family income. The higher the family income the higher your grades are. The lower the family income, the lower your grades your, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUCKLING DOWN. The smartest people I have ever known, where high school drop outs. I do agree that other factors have to be taken in account for admission, like geographic and economic. If Mr Maxey gets his way, your only people in college will be white rich kids. Because the poor minority parents could not afford to "buckle down" their kids, because it cost soo much money.

 

[batgeek]

sigh. it has everything to do with buckling down.

google "Dispelling the Myth" schools. i really should bold and italicize the word Myth.

here's a start: edtrust.org

 

[Bob Maxey]

Sigh. The number one factor in grades in jr and high school if family income. The higher the family income the higher your grades are. The lower the family income, the lower your grades your, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUCKLING DOWN. The smartest people I have ever known, where high school drop outs. I do agree that other factors have to be taken in account for admission, like geographic and economic. If Mr Maxey gets his way, your only people in college will be white rich kids. Because the poor minority parents could not afford to "buckle down" their kids, because it cost soo much money.

So poor people are stupid and rich people are smart, I guess? No, that is exactly what you said, no guessing required.

If Mr. Maxey gets his way, only qualified applicants will be accepted. Grade school, Jr. High, and High School are free; it is preparation for a better life and it has little to do with the wealth of the parents. If the kid does not care, he will have bad grades. His lack of caring will direct his future and he will not thrive. Parents do not seem to care in many cases and it shows in their child's performance.

So sport, it has everything to do with buckling down, studying hard, and striving for a better life. So sad you cant understand that simple idea. It is high time we stop coddling people. If they fail, let them flip burgers and sweep streets. Save college for people that earned their way there.

 

[lunatic59]

The number one factor in grades in jr and high school if family income.

False corollary, sorry. Just because low grades and low income are coincidental doesn't establish cause and effect.

 

[RiverOfIce]

False corollary, sorry. Just because low grades and low income are coincidental doesn't establish cause and effect.

Actually it does, at every level. Google it if you don't believe me.

 

[lunatic59]

Actually it does, at every level. Google it if you don't believe me.

I don't need to 'Google it' to believe the numbers. I fully understand that statistically the lower the income level the more likely children will be to perform poorly in school. What I am saying is it is not because of their families' lack of income that they are performing poorly. Look at it this way, statistically speaking minorities commit more crimes. Should we now believe that minorities are more prone to crime? You could also say statistically that low grades are the cause of low income, since the numbers also bear that out.

Talk to teachers in city schools (and any lower grade teacher in general, for that matter) and they will tell you the primary cause of children not performing well in school regardless of family income is their parents not giving a rodent's rectum about participating. They toss the kids off to the school district and expect them to spit out an educated adult 12 years later all the while setting an example of doing, frankly, nothing.

The 4 out of the simplest 5 things parents can do to improve their children's grades cost nothing. They can read to their children, even if it's one article a day from a paper they might already be reading. Even if the child doesn't understand it. Limit TV. Television is entertainment, not a baby sitter. Constant television promotes shortened attention spans and hinders learning. Exercise and proper amounts sleep, especially at younger ages will do more for a child's ability to learn than a computer. The last thing is proper nutrition, which in a low income family might be the greatest challenge.

The problem with the legislation as I see it is it's just another way to try and pass off the responsibility of the parent to the government. The schools don't fail the children of low income families, statistically their families do.

 

[EarlyMon]

Low income can lead to residency in a poor school district, where the students get inferior learning tools, teachers, and a higher on-site crime-rate level to deal with. (Whether the crimes are reported or not, crimes in schools happen.)

No disrespect to the brave inner city teachers intended or implied - we all know school boards court candidates and influence assignments.

The reason that 86% of all statistics are made up is that 57% of the time, underlying causality is not accounted for.

 

[lunatic59]

As Samuel Clemens so aptly put it, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[EarlyMon]

Ja wohl.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Sigh. The number one factor in grades in jr and high school if family income. The higher the family income the higher your grades are. ...

With the introduction of electronic books to the school system, the income factor has increased the void.

Online textbooks moving into schools - The Washington Post

"But questions remain about whether the least-privileged children will have equal access to required texts. Many don

 

[Vihzel]

Hmm... in terms of UC schools, this bill would impact Asians the hardest actually. Berkeley, UCLA, UCI, UCSD, UC Davis, and UC Riverside all have Asians as the largest student body with UCI as the leader = Asians (52%) White (23%). Also... there are more women than men in the UC and Cal State system so I have no idea why there would be a discount for women. No school has a major shortage of women. lol

This bill would actually give a leg up for Caucasians and other races trying to get into the top of the UC system (Berkeley, UCLA, UCI, UCSD, UC Davis, and UCSB are all in Top 50 nationally).

In terms of Ivy Leagues where race is looked at, Asians have to perform a lot better than Caucasians in high school because we're held to a higher standard. It's understandable though because there is a lot more pressure for Asian American high school students to do really well as compared to other races. So with this bill, it'll be tougher for Asian Americans to get into the top UC schools since I assume what happens at Ivy Leagues will also occur at those schools. I don't know much about Cal States other than Cal Poly SLO so I really have no idea what their %s are like but I assume they have a lot more Caucasians than Asians.

 

[JCampbell]

Honestly, I don't like any part of this bill. Regardless of my race or economic status or whatever (White male, middle class), I don't think any benefit should be given to me (as the post above me implies this bill would do). Admission to college should be based SOLELY off of credentials, both academic and extracurricular. The attempt to "help" minorities really just hurts everyone, because some unqualified students may make it into college before they are ready, giving them an utterly terrible GPA. Conversely, a competitive "majority" student may be forced to attend a lower quality institution, which could lead to issues in the workforce. I think admission to college and politics should be like this: a list of the person's accomplishments and views without a name or picture, read aloud by Morgan Freeman. Once the selection is made, the name and picture of the individual will be revealed.

 

[Vihzel]

Admission to college should be based SOLELY off of credentials, both academic and extracurricular. The attempt to "help" minorities really just hurts everyone, because some unqualified students may make it into college before they are ready, giving them an utterly terrible GPA. Conversely, a competitive "majority" student may be forced to attend a lower quality institution, which could lead to issues in the workforce. I think admission to college and politics should be like this: a list of the person's accomplishments and views without a name or picture, read aloud by Morgan Freeman. Once the selection is made, the name and picture of the individual will be revealed.

Exactly how does it hurt everyone if universities try to "help" minorities? There are PLENTY of unqualified students of all races in colleges. I don't know if you've studied at a university yet but you quickly realize how many stupid people there are and truly make you wonder how they could be there in the first place.

How can someone being rejected from Berkeley and forced to go to UCSD result in issues in the workforce? What are these issues or are you not sure of what the issues are?

Why is everyone protesting this but not protesting the discrimination that's occurring at Ivy Leagues where Asians represent a far lower number in comparison to top UC universities and have to achieve much more in comparison to other races? If the top UC schools are any indication, there should be far more Asians in the very top of higher education but there isn't.