That I'd like to read -- how long does it take to get it through the Public Disclosure?

For some reason Cosby's outburst comes at the same time that Michelle Malkin's article 2 Lazy 2 Teach appears
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39207
"Some lame-brained school officials have decided to ditch the sonnets of Shakespeare for the tripe of Tupac.

That's slain gangsta rapper Tupac Shakur – the drug-dealing, baseball bat-wielding,..."

and the latest attempt at "translating" the bible for those who Cosby complained about.

Amazing how today's educationists think that by removing the literature that was responsible for the progress of Western culture they will prepare those entering into this culture for understanding it and braving it. Giving them the courage to face up to life's challenges seems to be far more difficult than just inciting them to violence. Blaming everybody else instead of oneself for one's failures/humiliation (which is also a trait of the jihadists).

Imagine what would would have been of our current humanitarian traits had it not been for Dickens, apart from the bible and others, exposing the then existing situation and causing people to think in a positive sense?
The simplistic approach just magnifies the inability of those engaging in "transparency" in understanding. No doubt due to their own inadequacies.

"removing the literature that was responsible for the progress of Western culture" is intentionally done for the purpose of social change: code for replacing Western culture with a different one run by caudillos or a politburo, on the principles of political correctness.

During the run-up to Proposition 209 (Ward Connerly's successful effort to ban quotas in California college admissions and other state decisions -- I know the Shark Blog remembers), the Dean of the Berkeley Law School was very public in opposition to the measure. Her argument in a nutshell was that, without affirmative action, law school admissions would return to the bad old days of bigoted processing of applications. Given that Berkeley had probably six people involved in admissions (I'm estimating based on my attendance at UCLA Law School), she certainly figured out that it wouldn't do to accuse of bigotry a handful of people personally known to her. Thus she sought refuge in 'institutional racism.' Needless to say, enterprising Bay Area reporters in search of Pulitzers never asked her the obvious question: If every Berkeley law school representative evaluating applicants was non-racist, how could the institution be racist in its admissions process?

Distance-learning technology has reached a point where we could provide everyone in America (and probably anyone in the World who has electricity) with the resources to educate themselves however much they desire. This could be a great help to much of the World, much like the printing press.

When education is universally available, affirmitive action becomes irrelevant.

Universal availability of education doesn't make affirmative action irrelevant. If there is a disproportinately, or inexplicably low percentage of people of color being admitted to the most prestigious and well respected universities - something is still very wrong.

It is naive to think that people who harbor prejudices and ill-conceived notions about other racial/ethnic groups don't let those prejudices come to bear when making decisions or interacting with members of those racial/ethnic groups in the workplace.

Until we can realistically prove that no personal, individual, or institutional prejudices come to bear in the admissions process, there is still a need for affirmative action. Perhaps re-tooled, but there is still a need for it.

Individuals cannot be trusted to put there prejudicies aside. People of color experience racial discrimination - subtle and overt - every day - in the work place and in institutions of higher education.