Bush opposes 'legacy' college admissions

[Crav]

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/ ... index.html

I found this rather humorous and hypocritical.

This is a man who on merit could not get into the University of Texas Law School, yet got into Yale.

Bush opposes 'legacy' college admissions
Point raised at conference of minority journalists


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Friday he opposes the use of a family history at colleges or universities as a factor in determining admission.

Bush stated his position to what's known as "legacy" in response to a question during a Washington forum for minority journalists called Unity 2004.

He was asked, "Colleges should get rid of legacy?"

Bush responded, "Well I think so, yes. I think it ought to be based upon merit."

Under legacy programs, applicants are given an advantage if their parents or grandparents attended the school. Bush, a third-generation graduate of Yale University, joked about his own legacy.

"Well, in my case, I had to knock on a lot of doors to follow the old man's footsteps," he said to laughter.

Bush's remark came as he was being grilled about his opposition to affirmative action programs that consider race as a factor for admission, particularly through quota systems.

Bush said admission should be based "on merit."

Bush has not previously expressed opposition to the use of family lineage at a university to help admission.

In a lengthy exchange with the journalist, Bush said there should be no "special exception for certain people."

He expressed his support for diversity.
Affirmative action

While Bush clearly stated his opposition to quotas, he also suggested that he was not opposed to affirmative action.

But he didn't explain what the distinction was.

"I support college affirmatively taking action to get more minorities in their school," Bush said as the audience laughed.

Prominent civil rights leaders have also called for an end to the legacy practice, as have some Democrats -- including vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards.

In a 2002 speech on education, Edwards called it "a birthright out of 18th-century British aristocracy, not 21st-century American democracy."

Following Bush's remark on Friday, the Rev. Jesse Jackson told CNN it's a positive step "if it's a policy, not just a speech."

"'Legacy points' are very widespread for children of wealth," he said, arguing that underprivileged children have their opportunities limited by a legacy system.

[Voronwë]

this should be good on the Daily Show tonight =)...except it is Friday and no show =(

[Dregor Thule]

It'll still be funny come Monday.

[Adex_Xeda]

Bush can't win with you people.

If he were to speak in favor of legacy based admissions you'd blast him for supporting unfairness.

When he speaks against legacy based admissions you'd blast him for taking advantage of it in the past.


The hypocrites in this situation are the bush haters who impose impossible and contradictory standards.

He supports the side of fairness and should be commended for his stance.

[Forthe]

Bush can't win with you people.

If he were to speak in favor of legacy based admissions you'd blast him for supporting unfairness.

When he speaks against legacy based admissions you'd blast him for taking advantage of it in the past.


The hypocrites in this situation are the bush haters who impose impossible and contradictory standards.

He supports the side of fairness and should be commended for his stance.

Have to agree with Adex here. However, I wouldn't say he should be commended until he does more than lip service on the issue.

[Kelshara]

What Bush said was good, the fact that he is where he is today due to legacy makes it a bit amusing. Especially since he in the past has never said anything about it afaik. And since this is brand new from him it will require more than just a comment like this before I'll believe him.

[Voronwë]

adex, i think it is funny. but i dont think it should be illegal honestly.

Yale, Harvard, etc are privately funded Universities. They should be able to use whatever admissions criteria that they want.

or should they since they do receive a fair amount of overhead revenue (Harvard charges 110% overhead on NIH grants - before you ask, it is because they invest in top flight facilities and pay their "human capital" more, etc) from government grants.

hmmm dont know.

regardless, i wasn't a 'legacy' where i went to school, and my kids won't be either because I doubt I'll have that kind of money. but that being said, i'm not sure it should be illegal.

even though i agree with Bush that it is somewhat of an 'unfair' practice. that being said, i wonder if he would have said it if he wasn't speaking at a minority press club meeting.

[miir]

He supports the side of fairness and should be commended for his stance.

Do as I say, not as I do.

[Kylere]

One part of me says, oh so he whines after he benefits, the other side says, well, he would know that it is a bad thing right?

[Lohrno]

Bush can't win with you people.

If he were to speak in favor of legacy based admissions you'd blast him for supporting unfairness.

When he speaks against legacy based admissions you'd blast him for taking advantage of it in the past.


The hypocrites in this situation are the bush haters who impose impossible and contradictory standards.

He supports the side of fairness and should be commended for his stance.

Actually in this case I do agree with him.

That he took advantage of it, and has the balls to oppose it is commendable...

But so what? He still is a terrible president, and has majorly screwed us over, and is likely to start WWIII.

-=Lohrno

[Winnow]

But so what? He still is a terrible president, and has majorly screwed us over, and is likely to start WWIII.

-=Lohrno

Drama! We're all going to die!!11!!1!!

[Dregor Thule]

Bush can't win with you people.

Pretty much, yes. I personally don't like the legacy system, but really it's up to those universities to set their policies on who they admit. Bush was just pandering to a minority group, offering up verbal blowjobs about things he's never spoken once about before, and in fact directly benefited from them. So yes, I agree with him that legacies are bad. No, I don't applaud him for it.

[Metanis]

But so what? He still is a terrible president...and is likely to start WWIII.
-=Lohrno

Ummmm, I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but WWIII would imply an adversary that can threaten the entire world. I only perceive mainland China having that kind of global power (other than the USA of course).

[Ok, Ok, for the sake of argument, the Russians could put up a helluva fight if USA tried to invade the motherland, but the Russians have lost most of their force projection capability. In other words they would be capable of a great defense but have a limited offensive capability outside the continent of Europe.]

Our relations with China don't appear to be overly stressed at this time. Hence I don't understand the basis for that kind of rhetoric.

Your statement appears to be an excellent example of fear-mongering. You taking your cues from Michael Moore and the DNC?

[Niffoni]

Ummmm, I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but WWIII would imply an adversary that can threaten the entire world.

You're getting warmer...

[Forthe]

But so what? He still is a terrible president...and is likely to start WWIII.
-=Lohrno

Ummmm, I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but WWIII would imply an adversary that can threaten the entire world. I only perceive mainland China having that kind of global power (other than the USA of course).

[Ok, Ok, for the sake of argument, the Russians could put up a helluva fight if USA tried to invade the motherland, but the Russians have lost most of their force projection capability. In other words they would be capable of a great defense but have a limited offensive capability outside the continent of Europe.]

Our relations with China don't appear to be overly stressed at this time. Hence I don't understand the basis for that kind of rhetoric.

Your statement appears to be an excellent example of fear-mongering. You taking your cues from Michael Moore and the DNC?

From your perspective maybe. For the rest of the world the US is the next potential Germany. You are the adversary that can threaten the entire world. What a difference 4 years can make.

[Rasspotari]

but they are only following orders !

that means they are doing the right thing, doesn't it ?

like, ze germans did

another nation leader also scares me a bit, he makes videos, combs his hair up and wears high heels to appear taller. and has like a few hundred titles like "great father, heavenly beeing, father of all" and more

and he also has nuclear weapons. dudn't that make you feel all cosy inside huh ?

[Asheran Mojomaster]

another nation leader also scares me a bit, he makes videos, combs his hair up and wears high heels to appear taller. and has like a few hundred titles like "great father, heavenly beeing, father of all" and more

and he also has nuclear weapons. dudn't that make you feel all cosy inside huh ?

You forgot the fact that he is also 100% batshit insane.

[Thess]

Adex is right, both answers - I would have found fault with, however - the response he gave makes him a hypocrit.

Two times during the Unity Journalists of Color Convention (where he made the statement this post is about) people actually started laughing at his responses.

My favorite question/response being...

Q Good morning. My name is Mark Trahant. I'm the editorial page editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a member of the Native American Journalist Association. (Applause.) Most school kids learn about the government in the context of city, county, state and federal. And, of course, tribal governments are not part of that at all. Mr. President, you've been a governor and a President, so you have a unique experience, looking at it from two directions. What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and the state governments?

THE PRESIDENT: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.

[Lynks]

Adex is right, both answers - I would have found fault with, however - the response he gave makes him a hypocrit.

Two times during the Unity Journalists of Color Convention (where he made the statement this post is about) people actually started laughing at his responses.

My favorite question/response being...

Q Good morning. My name is Mark Trahant. I'm the editorial page editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a member of the Native American Journalist Association. (Applause.) Most school kids learn about the government in the context of city, county, state and federal. And, of course, tribal governments are not part of that at all. Mr. President, you've been a governor and a President, so you have a unique experience, looking at it from two directions. What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and the state governments?

THE PRESIDENT: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.

I saw that too. He looked really nervous talking about it. That text doesn't show it, but he had a few second pause before saying sovereignty everytime.

[Winnow]

From your perspective maybe. For the rest of the world the US is the next potential Germany. You are the adversary that can threaten the entire world. What a difference 4 years can make.

I've got all of your names! Cooperate and you will be given good jobs in the factories.

I doubt the majority of the rest of the world considers us the next germany. That's a bit extreme. Influential yes, but we're not going to invade Canada if you don't give us your resources cheap.

The U.S. may be the only country that can take it's show on the road and take down other countries, but even occupying Afghanistan and Iraq spreads our forces pretty thin.

[Kelshara]

Quite a few people outside of the US' borders considers the US to be the largest threat to world peace and stability. Wether correct or not I can't say, but that is what many believe.

[Winnow]

Quite a few people outside of the US' borders considers the US to be the largest threat to world peace and stability. Wether correct or not I can't say, but that is what many believe.

This isn't directed at Kelshara as he stated he's not sure if the perception is correct or not but as with politics, people view one side of something and attack it without a viable solution.

That's different than what Forthe said. I suppose you could consider us a threat to world peace if we did nothing as well. Do you think there would be peace in the world if the US cut off all aid, recalled all of it's forces back from foreign countries and developed an isolationist policy?

I give it....no time before chaos broke loose in Korea, Taiwan, the entire middle east, nuclear threats developed in Iran and unified Korea (if they don't wipe themselves out). It wouldn't even be the US involved in these potential nuclear wars. Pakistan/India, Korea-China with whoever's land/resources they needed. Iran/Israel, Iran/Iraq.

Call us a threat to peace I guess. Watch the shit hit the fan worse if we hang out at home and announce we won't be involved in world affairs anymore. Just like liberals complain about anything that Bush says no matter what it is, it's a can't win situation for the perception of the U.S. in world affairs.

[Kelshara]

Yeah you help stabilize Winnow.. but you also do so with your own interests in mind and have a history of supporting dictators etc when it benefits you. It might just balance itself out, but I nor anyone else can say what would happen without it. My guess would be a short-term bloody streak of violence before a different "power" nation took over.

Personally, even though the cold war was scary in itself, the balance of power was probably the most stable the world has ever been.

[Lohrno]

Your statement appears to be an excellent example of fear-mongering. You taking your cues from Michael Moore and the DNC?

Actually I kind of dislike Moore.

My reasoning though for making such a bold statement is that our president has a very gung ho attitude to foreign policy as evidenced by our recent invasion.

There are several places that this could lead to WWIII. We are getting deeper and deeper into the middle east policies. Now Iran is borderline/(already?) a nuclear power...If we piss off enough people in that region, the shit can hit the fan.

Korea...need I say more? I can wholly imagine Bush doing something dumb and starting nuclear war there.

What about if Bush rallies all those nationalists, enstate military law here and start an imperial crusade? The rest of the world is likely to oppose us in this case. It would be like WWII except we'd be Nazi Germany. It's not at all far fetched as far as I've seen. People are now being labelled 'Terrorist' left and right? Don't believe it? What about all the protestors who got put on the DNF list?

Those are just a few of the possibilities that could lead to WWIII because of Bush.

[VariaVespasa]

Legacies are a matter of the colleges hoping for donations, scholarship funds, bequests etc from their allumni primarily. Since typically all colleges recieve at least part of their funding from private sources, fund-raising is important to them. You would be hard-pressed to find any college on the continent that didnt have a selection of "this bench donated by", "this lab donated by", "this building donated by", "this item named in honor of (insert benefactor name)" around the campus, or a selection of named scholarships in its portfolio (eg- The Charlie Wilkinson scholarship, established to help aspiring pipe-fitters follow in his footsteps. The Cartwright scholarship, established in fond memory of John Cartwrights' time at this academy, etc). Every donation and scholarship a college can boast boosts its reputation and desireability, which boosts its financial stability and success. So naturally colleges pursue them, and legacies are a part of that.

*Hugs*
Varia

[Lohrno]

True, it's not hard to understand the reasoning behind them. But don't you think that this creates an unfair advantage? I would think that scholastic achievement/character should be the deciding factor for college admissions.

-=Lohrno