CNN Commentary

I read Roland Martin's commentary today about the repercussions of the Jeremiah Wright issue for Republicans. I'm not sure how much of this I agree with. Here's a clip:

For [conservatives], Wright's "hate" was a stench. Their "hate" comes up smelling like roses. But to every politician, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican: Beware. The die has been cast. The repeated denunciations of Wright will now lead each and every single one of you to have your pastors' oral and written words examined. If even one thing is said that can be construed as criticizing America or deemed hateful, then expect to see it on YouTube and replayed for millions to see. I suggest you go to your pastor now and say, "Please, watch what you say. I don't want to have to denounce you on national television."

His main point is that white pastors across the country have said things as crazy as what Jeremiah Wright has said. Thus, Republicans should be scrutinized for their affiliation with radical leaders just as Barack Obama has been over the past months. I would agree with that premise, but in practice I would probably disagree with Martin on which comments should be scrutinized. There are a lot of things publicly said by Christian pastors that get ripped apart by the media elite, like Martin, whereas I agree with many of those things being said. True, there are some instances in which pastors have made absurd comments that should be rebuked, but that is not common. In Obama's case though, Wright has been consistently un-Biblical and has spewed racist words for many years. Since Wright has a long history of the racist ideology of victimhood and refuses to change his tune, he should certainly be scrutinized. Just as importantly, Obama should be scrutinized for keeping such company for twenty years. It is a legitimate question to ask how much a man like Wright can impact a presidential candidate's ideology. Overall, I am split on this article. You can read the full article here.

GPA Inequity

I have long thought that the GPA system at Mizzou is unfair to the highest achieving students. I finally decided to do something about it, so I emailed three of my professors and the MU Chancellor. Here was my letter to the Chancellor:


Hi,

I am a sophomore Finance major here at Mizzou. I am writing to you because I believe the GPA system is an inequitable system that hurts the highest achieving university students. My problem with Mizzou's GPA system is that A- grades are given a lower than 4.0 score whereas A+ grades provide no benefit. Any student who receives a B-, C-, or D- can make up those grades with a B+, C+, or D+ because those three "plus" grades are given extra weight in the GPA system. When I was a freshman, I earned an A+ in a five credit hour Spanish course. However, I received only equal weight on my GPA as any student who earned a flat A. Yet, when I earned an A- the next semester in multiple courses, my GPA irrevocably dropped below a 4.0. That simply is not a just representation of my academic success. If I can be docked GPA points for an A-, then I should be given more than a 4.0 for an A+. However, I am sure that the university does not want to inflate scores above a four point scale, so I propose that the university change the weight of an A- to simply 4.0. Essentially, the current system promotes underachieving because students have no incentive to achieve maximum success. After all, reaching great success of an A ultimately provides the same reward as maximum success of an A+. Educational systems should provide incentives to promote academic success instead of inhibiting it. If this is ever changed, it would be great if Mizzou retroactively boosted all current students' GPAs according to the new standard.

I hope you thoughtfully consider this change,
Michael Alexander


My first two replies from professors were, "I already stated in the syllabus how I'm grading. It is not going to change." Hopefully I get a different response from the Chancellor or my other professor. I'll keep you updated on it.

Expelled

I was fortunate last night to be able to see Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It is exciting that the issue of Intelligent Design in higher education is now in the national spotlight. Granted, as Stein points out in the movie, the media is slanted toward the Darwinist side, so this probably will not get as much coverage as a Michael Moore film. I read some reviews on it already, and almost all of them said the film was poorly made, created poor arguments, and wasn't that funny. This behavior from reviewers is exactly the point that Stein made in "Expelled". There is a wall in the middle of society that is trying to keep people from seeing (just seeing, not believing) the theory of intelligent design. I thought Stein did a great, not perfect, job on this film and applaud him for taking on the establishment of the scientific community that has excommunicated anyone who even mentions that intelligent design is worth discussing.

Salmon Days

My accountancy professor told us about "Salmon Days":
"It's when you swim upstream all day only to get screwed and die."

I Was Semi-Featured in a Newspaper Article!!!

Last night I was invited to a pro-Affirmative Action forum after I posted a piece supporting the abolition of AA on a pro-AA Facebook page. I really enjoyed the opportunity to speak out against the AA cause, or rather, support Ward Connerly's initiative to get the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative (MoCRI) on the ballot this fall. Unfortunately I was one of only two people who said ANYTHING against affirmative action. It would have made for better discussion had more supporters of Connerly been there, but I'm glad I was there to voice a dissenting opinion. You can look at the MoCRI initiative here. Here's a bit of the article from the Columbia Missourian:

The discussion Thursday in the Life Sciences building, organized by the Missing Minority Campaign, was designed to open dialogue between those for and opposed to the initiative. In a crowd of over 50 people, however, only two supporters of the initiative may have been the only ones to attend. Michael Alexander, an MU student, said he didn’t feel overwhelmed about stating his position in a room full of opposition. He said he wants to reach the same goal of equality, but has a different strategy.
Alexander said he doesn’t believe a race-based scholarship can fix some social disadvantages minorities face, such as inadequate schools. Additionally, whites shouldn’t be overlooked because they lack the color to be considered for a certain scholarship.
“It should have nothing to do with the color of your skin,” he said.
Antonio Williams of By Any Means Necessary said he believes minorities need affirmative action for the same reason Alexander opposes it.
Williams said that minorities need additional help because they are often given inferior education. He is a high school student with a 3.5 grade point average, but scored a 15 on the ACT. (The rest of the article is here

I quoted Martin Luther King Jr. to the group to show how twisted their view is on this issue. MLK said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Needless to say, that ticked off quite a few people that I used MLK's words against the AA cause. But, would MLK REALLY want blacks to get preferential treatment because of their skin color? No way! He was opposing the use of skin color to be used for ANY decision, whether it be a cause for discrimination or promotion.

In Response to Missing Minority Campaign Rallies

I'm pretty sure that the reason everyone likes the idea of affirmative action is that it "creates equality" among races. This is an honorable goal. However, how do we best get "equality" among races? The only way this happens is if we become metaphorically colorblind and DO NOT take into consideration skin tone.
Thus, by affirmatively acting in favor of one person over another only because of skin color is only furthering the problem. Racial utopia will exist the day that whoever is MOST QUALIFIED for any position/scholarship/etc receives that position/scholarship/etc...REGARDLESS of race.
But, it is true that there is a disproportionate amount of unqualified minorities compared to qualified whites (the American majority). To fix this problem, it would be silly to put unqualified minorities in a position to fail, when someone qualified (regardless of race) could succeed. What needs to happen is that we need to fix the ROOT of the problem. Affirmative action is simply a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
The permanent solution would be to fix the K-12 education of minorities. One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that people respond to incentives; this is how America got where it is. If you tell someone that if they work hard, they can reap rewards, they will work much harder. Thus, if minority schools were offered greater funding in reward for higher standardized test grades, then I guarantee that the education and well-being of minorities would rise drastically. If we took this approach, affirmative action would be unnecessary because minorities would be just as prepared as whites for positions that they are applying for.
So, Ward Connerly (who is trying to eliminate affirmative action in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri) might just be on your side and you don’t even know it. His intention is probably to HELP minorities by eliminating affirmative action. It’s not just to beat minorities down. I just think everyone needs to think this through before they decide affirmative action is the way to fix racial issues.

In Response to Missing Minority Campaign Rallies

I'm pretty sure that the reason everyone likes the idea of affirmative action is that it "creates equality" among races. This is an honorable goal. However, how do we best get "equality" among races? The only way this happens is if we become metaphorically colorblind and DO NOT take into consideration skin tone.
Thus, by affirmatively acting in favor of one person over another only because of skin color is only furthering the problem. Racial utopia will exist the day that whoever is MOST QUALIFIED for any position/scholarship/etc receives that position/scholarship/etc...REGARDLESS of race.
But, it is true that there is a disproportionate amount of unqualified minorities compared to qualified whites (the American majority). To fix this problem, it would be silly to put unqualified minorities in a position to fail, when someone qualified (regardless of race) could succeed. What needs to happen is that we need to fix the ROOT of the problem. Affirmative action is simply a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
The permanent solution would be to fix the K-12 education of minorities. One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that people respond to incentives; this is how America got where it is. If you tell someone that if they work hard, they can reap rewards, they will work much harder. Thus, if minority schools were offered greater funding in reward for higher standardized test grades, then I guarantee that the education and well-being of minorities would rise drastically. If we took this approach, affirmative action would be unnecessary because minorities would be just as prepared as whites for positions that they are applying for.
So, Ward Connerly (who is trying to eliminate affirmative action in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri) might just be on your side and you don’t even know it. His intention is probably to HELP minorities by eliminating affirmative action. It’s not just to beat minorities down. I just think everyone needs to think this through before they decide affirmative action is the way to fix racial issues.