Absolutely.

I actually agree with pschmom1, this is the way it is in many countries. We need to take care of the people that we already have here before we start taking on more people. I am not an isolationist, but we have a lot of problems in our country. We need to fix things like our horrible rates (IMO) of poverty, unemployment, literacy, birth rate, and general lack of education. If we can educate our "citizens" more fully first, then hopefully there will be less unemployment, less poverty, and thus more money to open slots for foreigners in our schools. This is the way it is most places, so why is it so unfair to have that here?

I humbly beg to differ... in most industrialized nations things are not at ALL this way. People who were not born and raised in that country are not barred from educational institutions and they are judged on their merit when applying to medical school, not on whether they were born and raised in that country.

The United States benefit quite a bit from the talents, education and training of individuals educated in other systems (free of charge to the US and usually at the expense of the other nation), but funnily when an immigrant wants to go to medical school here, at his/her OWN expense (to the tune of $40,000 a year, give or take a few thousand)... then suddenly we want to "take care of our own"... Ironically, foreign-born doctors are more likely and more willing to treat our indigent populations, to take jobs in rural areas, to care for "our own" Americans who cannot get care in this system... (I would be happy to provde statistics and references, if anyone wishes to explore this further.)

Fundamentally, I have to respectfully point out that the inclindation to judge a person by his/her birth certificate (similar to skin color), rather than his/her merits, is fundamentally racist - in the broadest sense of the word.

My attention span isn't that long today, so I can't say that I read all of that line for line. I will say this though. Genocide is genocide. That article doesn't account for the Native Americans being given small pox infested blankets and being sent on the Trail of Tears. Nor does it account for the mass amounts of genocide in this country concerning Africans. Genocide is genocide to me. I agree to disagree.

It has a lot to do with everything you wrote. You wrote a set of questions about race/skin tone/sex. There are a lot of inequalities to consider before you can just try to compare accomplishments. Bottom line, a person who doesn't have to worry about economics or skin color has a better chance than a person who does. And if you look at minority races, there are way more have nots than haves as compared to the majority race. You asked is it fair to give someone something based on their skin tone/heritage? Well is it fair to compare "accomplishments" in a system that is clearly unequal?

It's almost like having a race where one participant has a broken leg and a broken arm racing against the other participant who has nothing hurt. Sure, there is a shot that the hurt participant can win. There always is. But if that person doesn't, it's ridiculous to try to act like the playing field was so equal.

I was actually looking at schools in other countries a couple of months ago. I have always been interested in living abroad. I found that it would be highly difficult to get a chance to move to the UK, Sweden, Denmark, France, Iceland, or Canada. Canada was probably the easiest, but it is still incredibly difficult to pay for your education abroad if you are poor like me. If your family is paying for it and has connections it may be easier, but from what I have read here and on other forums, it is very difficult to get into most other countries. The ones that I am interested in, at least. I haven't inquired to ones outside the above list.

[/QUOTE]It has a lot to do with everything you wrote. You wrote a set of questions about race/skin tone/sex. There are a lot of inequalities to consider before you can just try to compare accomplishments. Bottom line, a person who doesn't have to worry about economics or skin color has a better chance than a person who does. And if you look at minority races, there are way more have nots than haves as compared to the majority race. You asked is it fair to give someone something based on their skin tone/heritage? Well is it fair to compare "accomplishments" in a system that is clearly unequal?

It's almost like having a race where one participant has a broken leg and a broken arm racing against the other participant who has nothing hurt. Sure, there is a shot that the hurt participant can win. There always is. But if that person doesn't, it's ridiculous to try to act like the playing field was so equal. [/QB][/QUOTE]

How do you really delineate fairly when there should be provisions based on skin tone/heritage versus "accomplishments". It may be true that there are more haves than have nots in the "majority race", but in making such a blanket statement, you overlook the have nots of the majority race altogether. Is it fair for the white kid who grew up underpriviledged and in poverty with none of the benefits "the haves" had to be denied the same help available to the minority kids who may or may not have grown up in the same dire circumstances?

I won't pretend to be as well-versed in all of this as many of you are, but it seems to me that we continue to put the emphasis on race or minority/majority status when perhaps we should focus more on the actual experiences/history and accomplishments of each individual.

It's a pretty huge problem (understatment!) and I certainly do not have all the answers.

It has a lot to do with everything you wrote. You wrote a set of questions about race/skin tone/sex. There are a lot of inequalities to consider before you can just try to compare accomplishments. Bottom line, a person who doesn't have to worry about economics or skin color has a better chance than a person who does. And if you look at minority races, there are way more have nots than haves as compared to the majority race. You asked is it fair to give someone something based on their skin tone/heritage? Well is it fair to compare "accomplishments" in a system that is clearly unequal?

It's almost like having a race where one participant has a broken leg and a broken arm racing against the other participant who has nothing hurt. Sure, there is a shot that the hurt participant can win. There always is. But if that person doesn't, it's ridiculous to try to act like the playing field was so equal. [/QUOTE]

How do you really delineate fairly when there should be provisions based on skin tone/heritage versus "accomplishments". It may be true that there are more haves than have nots in the "majority race", but in making such a blanket statement, you overlook the have nots of the majority race altogether. Is it fair for the white kid who grew up underpriviledged and in poverty with none of the benefits "the haves" had to be denied the same help available to the minority kids who may or may not have grown up in the same dire circumstances?

I won't pretend to be as well-versed in all of this as many of you are, but it seems to me that we continue to put the emphasis on race or minority/majority status when perhaps we should focus more on the actual experiences/history and accomplishments of each individual.

It's a pretty huge problem (understatment!) and I certainly do not have all the answers. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I agree that there is no easy answer. I can post from my experiences though. Say you have a poor white kid and a poor mexican kid. Everything being exactly equal among them. When the poor white kid makes it out of poverty by whatever means, he/she will probably never have experienced discrimination based solely on his/her skin color. Do you know what it's like to be at the office and hear racial remarks from those in authority? To hear Mexican people called sand niggers? To have someone say they nigger rigged a spreadsheet? To be asked do all black folks like hot sauce? To have to work double hard because you are poor, and then triple hard because you are a minority and seen as being somehow inferior? See, when the white kid does make it out of poverty, he/she is probably better able to blend into society a lot better than one who isn't white. But skin color doesn't blend in too well. You can't hide it under a really nice suit and tie or dress. I find myself only wondering how much of a glass ceiling exists that I can't see...because the ceiling that I can see is pretty thick.