In response to "Does race matter to sports world?" by Andy Granias:

The NBA is 80 percent blacks. But there is only one black male with any sort of ownership stake. Michael Jordan took the NBA from a multi-million to a multi-billion a year operation. How much power did this earn him?

The NBA is getting ready to expand into china and other countries, how much of an equity stake is this going to accrue to the black athletes, or to anyone else in the black community, who have contributed so much to this success?

The real issue is whether the talent and achievement of black athletes is rewarded with political and economic power. And since white males predominate in these areas, will they be willing and able to share the power and the money with black athletes, or will they only feel comfortable sharing power and money with people who look like them, regardless of their contributions to the sport?

In response to "Civil rights movement needs 'Black-In'" by Gerald Cox:

Good points Gerald. What you must realize though is that both strategies are necessary. The American people act only when they have choices. If there was no Malcolm X there would have been no Dr. King. While the current civil rights leaders may do some harm, they also bring attention to injustice that would most likely be swept under the rug.

In response to "The pitfalls of holistic admissions" by Mike Hahn:

While I agree that increasing the performance of Wisconsin public schools at the K-12 levels is essential to increasing equality in our society, I see absolutely no reason that this should be the exclusive remedy. Your piece jumps from ‘increased performance from K-12 is important’ to ‘increased performance in the public schools is the only remedy and holistic admissions are futile’ without any legitimate explanation.

Just because k-12 education needs to be fixed doesn’t mean that holistic admissions doesn’t have a place in the process as well.

You speculate that students admitted to the university through these more flexible standards aren’t prepared, and insinuate their presence at the university will be detrimental to other students. How single-minded and self-interested. First, you offer nothing but a vague anecdote to support the idea that letting in students based on something more than pure academic standards “hurt[s] the entire class.” Second, it appears to never even cross your mind that students admitted under such standards may bring benefits to the university as a whole.

The failure of the elementary education in this state is no excuse to not explore other options. When the reader subtracts your worthwhile comments on funding K-12 education, they are left with nothing but a hollow opposition to holistic admissions.

In response to "The merits of holistic admissions" by Kyle Szarzynski:

“Opponents of racial equality?” Those who truly support racial equality want everyone to be treated equally, not treat some special groups better than everyone else. Kyle’s argument tries to paint true supporters of equality as racists.

In response to "'Think, Respect' does neither, preempts rational action" by Robert Phansalkar:

The whole blowing up racism into the largest problem of all time actually makes racism into the largest problem of all time. Maslow’s hammer.

In response to "Silence not golden on UW Housing race dialogue" by Jason Smathers:

UW Housing should be about providing a place to live, not indoctrinating people in their ideology of choice. If someone is being a racist, then they should step in. Otherwise, get out of the way.

In response to "Do Democrats take minority votes for granted?" by Bassey Etim:

Do Democrats take minority votes for granted? Is the Pope Catholic?