SMU halts Race-based Bake Sale

[Drbio]

SMU halts race-based bake sale
Anti-affirmative action group used ethnicity, gender to set prices


07:43 AM CDT on Thursday, September 25, 2003

By LINDA K. WERTHEIMER / The Dallas Morning News

The sign said white males had to pay $1 for a cookie. White women: 75 cents. Hispanics: 50 cents. Blacks: a quarter.

The event Tuesday at Southern Methodist University was no PTA bake sale.

It was a conservative student group's attempt at making a political statement, and it caused such a stir that SMU shut it down after 45 minutes.

The Young Conservatives of Texas chapter ran its so-called affirmative action bake sale to protest the use of race or gender as a factor in college admissions. Conservative groups have held similar sales at colleges around the country since February.

Group leaders say they were only making a point while exercising their freedom of speech, but a black student who filed a discrimination complaint with SMU said the bake sale was offensive. SMU officials said they halted the event because it created a potentially unsafe situation for students.
"This was not an issue about free speech," said Tim Moore, director of the Hughes-Trigg Student Center. "It was really an issue where we had a hostile environment being created that was potentially volatile."

During the bake sale, students were crowding around the table outside the student center, and several began to get into a shouting match, Mr. Moore said.

David C. Rushing, a second-year SMU law student and leader of the conservatives' group, said the event didn't get out of hand and that at the most, a dozen students gathered around the table of sugar and chocolate chip cookies and Rice Krispie treats.

"We copied what's been done at multiple campuses around the country to illustrate our opinion of affirmative action and how we think it's unfair," said Mr. Rushing, chairman of Young Conservatives of Texas at SMU and for the state.

Chapters of the group held similar bake sales at the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University this month. Both schools allowed the events, citing free speech policies.

Mr. Rushing, 23, said the events strive to give students a sense of the inequality he says is created by unequal college admissions policies for whites and minority groups.

Matt Houston, a sophomore, said the group's sign, which listed prices for the treats by the race and sex of buyers, was not a learning tool. It was offensive, he said.

"My reaction was disgust because of the ignorance of some SMU students," said Mr. Houston, who is black. "They were arguing that affirmative action was solely based on race. It's not based on race. It's based on bringing a diverse community to a certain organization."

He and Kambira Jones, a 20-year-old junior, both expressed their concerns to SMU officials. "When I saw this, I was like, 'I can't believe they let you guys post this,' " she said. "I felt they were attempting to make Hispanics and blacks feel inferior. We jumped over the same hoops to get there."

SMU's freshman class this year is one of its most diverse ever – 20 percent are minorities. Overall, minority enrollment among the school's 10,000-member student body is 19 percent.

Before the bake sale brouhaha, SMU already was planning a forum so students and others could debate the aftermath of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action. The court ruled in June that universities could use race as a factor in admissions under limited conditions. The ruling changes the landscape in Texas, where universities have been banned from using race as a factor since 1996.

"We value free speech, and I think our record here shows freedom of expression is important to the academic community and especially this one," said James Caswell, SMU's vice president of student affairs.

The students organizing the SMU event said they meant no offense. To get permission for setting up, students said only that they were holding a bake sale.


For the record, the SMU sale was a flop, at least financially. The group ended up selling just three cookies, raising $1.50.

[u2sarajevo]

I saw this on the news last night and thought it was pathetic. I don't get what they were trying to do, but it was tasteless nonetheless.

[madape]

3 cookies, $1.50:

1 white man, 2 blacks
1 white woman, 1 hispanic, 1 black
3 hispanics

It sounds like a progressive program. Minorities snatched up between 67%-100% of the sales on a campus with a student body consisting of around 40% white males. The system is working.

[Murphy3]

yeah, it was "maybe" a bit tasteless..but, i completely get what they are trying to do.

I also believe that they got the exposure that they were looking for.

[jacktruth]

Why is it tasteless?

Because it is only acceptable to creatively demonstrate against a public policy that you disagree with. . .




If you are a minority??

[Rod1975]

This is a travesty to so-called free speech.....
Free speech is'nt just limited to unoffensive, politically correct subjects, we all know this.
If it offends some people, good! It at least gets them thinking.
Maybe it opened the eyes of some current or future student who has taken or will take the spot of someone who is more qualified than themself. And hopefully they will be humbled by it and not have a sense of entitlement that many minorities have.
The merit system is right out the window now, so hopefully the sense of entitlement that plagues this society will start to diminish among minorites.
To discriminate against whites is to appease minorites, simple as that. Because if it really was the merit system that we were using, then the most qualified student would get in, and that is what is right.
And what REALLY offends me, is that minorities are seeking so much equality, yet they allow themselves to be insulted by programs such as affirmative action.

Prices of the cookies were'nt just pulled out of the air....there was some research involved in setting those prices. I see it all the time!
My best friend of ten years (who is white)spent 3 years trying to get on the dallas fire dept. He has a 4 yr degree, made a 94 on his entrance exam, and it took him almost 3 years to get a job.
Another friend of mine that I play basketball with (who is black) spent only about 5 months trying to get a job with the fire dept. He has 2 years of college,no degree and made an 83 on his entrance exam. From the time he made up his mind to become a firefighter, to the time he started the academy, was just over 5 months.

Does anyone else see the wrong in that?

[Murphy3]

one question..

how much money did they raise?

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: Rod1975
This is a travesty to so-called free speech.....
Free speech is'nt just limited to unoffensive, politically correct subjects, we all know this.
If it offends some people, good! It at least gets them thinking.
Maybe it opened the eyes of some current or future student who has taken or will take the spot of someone who is more qualified than themself. And hopefully they will be humbled by it and not have a sense of entitlement that many minorities have.
The merit system is right out the window now, so hopefully the sense of entitlement that plagues this society will start to diminish among minorites.
To discriminate against whites is to appease minorites, simple as that. Because if it really was the merit system that we were using, then the most qualified student would get in, and that is what is right.
And what REALLY offends me, is that minorities are seeking so much equality, yet they allow themselves to be insulted by programs such as affirmative action.

Prices of the cookies were'nt just pulled out of the air....there was some research involved in setting those prices. I see it all the time!
My best friend of ten years (who is white)spent 3 years trying to get on the dallas fire dept. He has a 4 yr degree, made a 94 on his entrance exam, and it took him almost 3 years to get a job.
Another friend of mine that I play basketball with (who is black) spent only about 5 months trying to get a job with the fire dept. He has 2 years of college,no degree and made an 83 on his entrance exam. From the time he made up his mind to become a firefighter, to the time he started the academy, was just over 5 months.

Does anyone else see the wrong in that?

I only see wrong in it if they both applied at the same time. Is that the case?

[sturm und drang]

Woe is me. I am white and sooooo discriminated against. Boo hoo hoo.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Woe is me. I am white and sooooo discriminated against. Boo hoo hoo.

I know.... it seems so backwards. It is ridiculous. I know these guys are college kids, but I wonder if they will think the same way when they start interning...

This country has a loooooong ways to go. Still.

[Murphy3]

white people that are discriminated against don't have the same rights to protest and/or to be upset that minorities do?

although i do doubt that the majority of the students involved in the debate will ever be a victim of race or sex related sexual discrimiation during their life time

[signoftimes]

Woe is me. I am white and sooooo discriminated against. Boo hoo hoo.

I'm glad someone can feel my pain.[img]i/expressions/moon.gif[/img]

[kg_veteran]

I kinda see their point.

[Murphy3]

not really too specific there, KG.

which point?

[kg_veteran]

The point that when you base admissions or hiring practices on something other than merits (or qualifications), it begins to appear arbitrary and unfair.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
white people that are discriminated against don't have the same rights to protest and/or to be upset that minorities do?

although i do doubt that the majority of the students involved in the debate will ever be a victim of race or sex related sexual discrimiation during their life time

Not saying they don't have the right. But they need to advertise this. If I were a minority walking along and saw that I would be incensed as well. I think they need to re-think the process. It looked to passers by as nothing more than blatant racism, and I think a college should have the right to prevent that on the school property.

[Murphy3]

If I were a minority, I would be thrilled because the brownie that I wanted to buy would be cheaper for me than for others.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
If I were a minority, I would be thrilled because the brownie that I wanted to buy would be cheaper for me than for others.

If you were truly a minority I would listen to your argument.

I ain't buying it.

[madape]

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal... except for whitey, who should pay more for his cookie. "
- Thomas Jefferson and friends. July 4, 1776

[Murphy3]

U2, then you really don't know how much I like brownies.

genius, madape

[Usually Lurkin]

[quote]
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

Originally posted by: Murphy3and I think a college should have the right to prevent that on the school property.

Except in the admissions office?

Woe is me. I am white and sooooo discriminated against. Boo hoo hoo.

A true test of racism is to replace "white" with "black" or vice-versa, and see if your statement or situation seems the same.

[u2sarajevo]

Good point UL....

as I said, this country has a loooong way to go.

[TheLou]

I hate the fact that everyone believes that whole, "All men are created equal" that is complete and utter BS. I don't mean that racially, I mean it in its truest form, I know for a fact I am smarter than 90% of the mouth breathers I encounter on a day to day basis. Some people are tall, some people are short, some people are smart, some are idiots, the list goes on and on, so NO, all men are not created equal.

In my opinion, the saying should be, "All men(people) have the same oportunities". Then people wouldn't get so worked up on the whole created equal thing.

Also, if you don't get what they were trying to point out by their price list, you are the person they were trying to reach most of all. Most people just see this as, "OH MY GOD, LOOK AT THE RACISM!1!1!!", but if you stop and think about what affirmative action is, how it effects everyday life, and how it ties together with this cookie sale, you'll see they made a good point.

[jacktruth]

If you are against affirmative action, I think you first have to be convinced that there was never a time in the history of the United States that affirmative action was neccesary.

If you believe there was a time that affirmative action was neccesary but that time is past, then you should be able to prove your point using the same statisitcs they used to justify affirmative action to begin with. I've never seen it done successfully.


I also think it is great that a conservative group is making a political demonstration. We are so accustomed to liberal demonstrations, especially at the collegiate level, that it doesn't even affect us anymore (thank God it doesn't affect us anymore).

[madape]

-edit-

[Chiwas]

They did that precisely for making a point, a statement, to raise controversy. The same it provoked here.

Discrimination is bad for everybody. Ask a white who mistakenly walks or drives into a black guetto. (I had that bad experience in San Antonio, when I drove to a white junkies street; the discrimination was against a white non-adictive stranger -with car- and they hit my vehicle)

I remember a Drew Carey's line: "What's happening with this country? Now I only can fight -argue- against white men?" (sort of).

I hate when doing my work, have to face a woman cause in the end, if she isn't doing well, the argument is "I don't like her job because she is woman", and the preaching against men, 10 times more frequent, doesn't count.

However, I still think that over-protecting the minorities is better than under-protecting them.

Someday, hopefully, we can find a balance. Better we do, cause someday we could be the minority.

[OutletPass]

Let's try to elevate the discussion beyond the rhetoric of both sides and actually examine the latest important case Supreme Court case and try, at least, to understand what the Supremes are getting at....

Held: The Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI, or §1981. Pp. 9–32. (a) In the landmark Bakke case, this Court reviewed a medical school’s racial set-aside program that reserved 16 out of 100 seats for members of certain minority groups. The decision produced six separate opinions, none of which commanded a majority. Four Justices would have upheld the program on the ground that the government can use race to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial rejudice. 438 U. S., at 325. Four other Justices would have struck the program down on statutory grounds. Id., at 408. Justice Powell, announcing the Court’s judgment, provided a fifth vote not only for invalidating the program, but also for reversing the state court’s injunction against any use of race whatsoever.

In a part of his opinion that was joined by no other Justice, Justice Powell expressed his view that attaining a diverse student body was the only interest asserted by the university that survived scrutiny. Id., at 311. Grounding his analysis in the academic freedom that “long has been viewed as a special concern of the First Amendment,” id., at 312, 314, Justice Powell emphasized that the “ ‘nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure’ to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation.” Id., at 313. However, he also em-phasized that “[i]t is not an interest in simple ethnic diversity, in which a specified percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to be members of selected ethnic groups,” that can justify using race. Id., at 315. Rather, “[t]he diversity that furthers a compelling state interest encompasses a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element.” Ibid.

Since Bakke, Justice Powell’s opinion has been the touchstone for constitutional analysis of race-conscious admissions policies. Public and private universities across the Nation have modeled their own admissions programs on Justice Powell’s views. Courts, however, have struggled to discern whether Justice Powell’s diversity rationale is binding precedent. The Court finds it unnecessary to decide this issue because the Court endorses Justice Powell’s view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest in the context of university admissions. Pp. 9–13. (b) All government racial classifications must be analyzed by a re-viewing court under strict scrutiny. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 227. But not all such uses are invalidated by strict scrutiny. Race-based action necessary to further a compelling governmental interest does not violate the Equal Protection Clause so long as it is narrowly tailored to further that interest. E.g., Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899, 908. Context matters when reviewing such action. See Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 343–344. Not every decision influenced by race is equally objectionable, and strict scru-tiny is designed to provide a framework for carefully examining the importance and the sincerity of the government’s reasons for using race in a particular context. 13–15. (c) The Court endorses Justice Powell’s view that student body di-versity is a compelling state interest that can justify using race in university admissions. The Court defers to the Law School’s educa-tional judgment that diversity is essential to its educational mission. The Court’s scrutiny of that interest is no less strict for taking into account complex educational judgments in an area that lies primarily within the university’s expertise. See, e.g., Bakke, 438 U. S., at 319, n. 53 (opinion of Powell, J.). Attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law School’s proper institutional mission, and its “good faith” is “presumed” absent “a showing to the contrary.” Id., at 318– 319. Enrolling a “critical mass” of minority students simply to assure some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin would be patently unconstitutional. E.g., id., at 307.

But the Law School defines its critical mass concept by reference to the substantial, important, and laudable educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce, including cross-racial understanding and the breaking down of racial stereotypes. The Law School’s claim is further bolstered by numerous expert studies and reports showing that such diversity promotes learning outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce, for society, and for the legal profession. Major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. High-ranking retired officers and civilian military leaders assert that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps is essential to national security. Moreover, because universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of the Nation’s leaders, Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634, the path to leadership must be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. Thus, the Law School has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body. 15–21. (d) The Law School’s admissions program bears the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan.

To be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious ad-missions program cannot “insulat[e] each category of applicants with certain desired qualifications from competition with all other appli-cants.” Bakke, supra, at 315 (opinion of Powell, J.). Instead, it may con-sider race or ethnicity only as a “ ‘plus’ in a particular applicant’s file”; i.e., it must be “flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of di-versity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same footing for consideration, although not neces-sarily according them the same weight,” id., at 317. It follows that universities cannot establish quotas for members of certain racial or ethnic groups or put them on separate admissions tracks. See id., at 315–316. The Law School’s admissions program, like the Harvard plan approved by Justice Powell, satisfies these requirements. Moreover, the program is flexible enough to ensure that each appli-cant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes race or ethnicity the defining feature of the application. See Bakke, supra, at 317 (opinion of Powell, J.).

The Law School engages in a highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s file, giving serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a di-verse educational environment. There is no policy, either de jure or de facto, of automatic acceptance or rejection based on any single “soft” variable. Gratz v. Bollinger, ante, p. ___, distinguished. Also, the program adequately ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race. Moreover, the Law School frequently accepts nonminority applicants with grades and test scores lower than underrepresented minority applicants (and other nonminority applicants) who are rejected. The Court rejects the argument that the Law School should have used other race-neutral means to obtain the educational benefits of student body diversity, e.g., a lottery system or decreasing the emphasis on GPA and LSAT scores. Narrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative or mandate that a university choose between maintaining a reputation for excellence or fulfilling a commitment to provide educational opportunities to members of all racial groups. See, e.g., Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 280, n. 6.

The Court is satisfied that the Law School adequately considered the available alternatives. The Court is also satisfied that, in the context of individualized consideration of the possi-ble diversity contributions of each applicant, the Law School’s race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants. Finally, race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable.


--- Wonder why all those business executives testified that "that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints." ---- and why all those military officials testified, under oath, that "that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps is essential to national security. " Anybody have an idea ? Think that they were lying ?

Also note: In a companion decision, the Supremes struck down the U of M's undergraduate program which relied solely on quotas. That was Gratz v. Bollinger (referred to above)

and last: The ruling only applies to state schools, not private universities like SMU. Nice stunt, wrong place.


Ok...I've placed the most important concept in bold...and ask again --- Wonder why all those business executives testified that "that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints." ---- and why all those military officials testified, under oath, that "that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps is essential to national security. " Anybody have an idea ? Think that they were lying ?

[Big Boy Laroux]

man, like i'm gonna read all that. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Murphy3]

i'm still waiting on the cliff notes

[kg_veteran]

But the Law School defines its critical mass concept by reference to the substantial, important, and laudable educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce, including cross-racial understanding and the breaking down of racial stereotypes. The Law School’s claim is further bolstered by numerous expert studies and reports showing that such diversity promotes learning outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce, for society, and for the legal profession.

I just don't get this argument at all. Being around people different from me in an academic environment makes me better prepared to enter the "real world"? I don't buy it.

I'll tell you what prepares you for the real world. Entering it.

When I turned 16, I took a job as a file clerk at a local hospital, and I worked at that same job until I graduated from college. I learned more about people of other ethnicities and backgrounds from that job than anything I could have ever learned by taking classes with someone who I might or might not even speak to.

Major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.

So expose yourself to widely diverse people, viewpoints, etc. But to say that more qualified people shouldn't get into a school simply because they are too much like the people already there is just absurd.

High-ranking retired officers and civilian military leaders assert that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps is essential to national security.

I'd love to see some support for this statement.

Moreover, because universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of the Nation’s leaders, Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634, the path to leadership must be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.

I agree. It should be open to talented and qualified individuals, regardless of race and ethnicity. I don't want the underqualified guy or girl getting in. Period.

[sturm und drang]

Even I will admit that affirmative action is a band-aid-- and not a very good one at that.

I do, however, see a problem with the incredible chasm between the educational opportunities available to the disadvantaged and the more fortunate. A child has no control over to whom he/she is born, yet the schools in disadvantaged areas are a travesty. "Affirmative action" needs to come in kindergarten, and it needs to come by providing more money and better schooling to the underprivileged. By the time it kicks in via college admission policies, it's far too late. In fact, I think it is often a disservice to those who gain entrance to schools to which they are under-qualified and under-prepared.

I am a big believer in plans like the infamous Robin Hood plan that attempt to atone for disparity in per-pupil spending in different districts. Schools can never atone for the lack of family, income, parenting and stability that is often found in underprivileged areas-- but education is, after all, the great equalizer. Kids from lower socio-economic groups should be given every educational chance that the affluent are. From day one, not at the age of 18. Give them the opportunities that the rich have-- the lower teacher/student ratios, the after school activities, the art supplies and computer labs-- and then decide college admission on merit alone.

Has anyone read "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol? If not, it's an incredibly eye-opening book about the different conditions in different schools-- especially the juxtaposition of schools close to each other geographically (Cherry Hill and Camden, NJ, for example) that seem to be in different worlds. It's amazing how disparate our educational system is.

[kg_veteran]

Sturm, excellent post. I'm not sure that you can ever level the playing field completely because of the vital role that parents (good and bad) play, and I'm not sure whether I'm for or against Robin Hood type plans, but your point is well-taken.

Once you get to the college level, many times they've either had their chance or they haven't.

[Murphy3]

wouldn't national security take a hit..and wouldn't the nations economy eventually take a hit by giving less qualified opportunities over the more qualified applicant? It really makes no sense.

[OutletPass]

As KG and Dooby will tell you, lawyers don't agree with every Supreme Court decision.

I posted it to simply point out their reasoning in THIS case...and if it sparks a good discussion, rather than knee jerk responses, I'm well satisfied.

I'm as curious about the testimony as anyone...and also agree that things need to start at the grade school level rather than in college or graduate programs.

[Murphy3]

Sturm, excellent post. something similar to "affirmative action" does need to start at or near the kindergarten level. Not at the collegiate level.

[Big Boy Laroux]

sturm, great post. you are absolutely correct in that it needs to start earlier. my fiance taught at an elementary school near the outskirts of nashville, and they constantly had things going on... after-school programs, school plays, etc.

she switched jobs to a school in a less than desirable area. the difference between the schools is night and day. The teachers there do all they can, but in many cases, they are simply overworked because teachers do not want to be there. Thus, the ones that do want to be there have overloaded classes. and they can't afford to have extracurricular activities because they don't have the staff to handle them.

it sucks. and that's where the change needs to be made. because you're right, making changes when kids are 18 is too late. change needs to occur during their formative years.

[Usually Lurkin]

do, however, see a problem with the incredible chasm between the educational opportunities available to the disadvantaged and the more fortunate.

level of fortune is different than racial category.
Giving extra help to someone who has not had help is different than giving extra help to someone because of the color of their skin.

If you can quantify levels of disadvantage (skin color is just a bad way of doing this), and then target certain levels with services meant to raise qualifications of people in those levels (not lower expectations for them), you've got a more fair system.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Has anyone read "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol? If not, it's an incredibly eye-opening book about the different conditions in different schools-- especially the juxtaposition of schools close to each other geographically (Cherry Hill and Camden, NJ, for example) that seem to be in different worlds. It's amazing how disparate our educational system is.

Yes I've read it. I highly recommend reading Amazing Grace, another of Kozols books. It focuses on South Bronx, but a very good read as well.

Very good post sturm.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

level of fortune is different than racial category.
Giving extra help to someone who has not had help is different than giving extra help to someone because of the color of their skin.

If you can quantify levels of disadvantage (skin color is just a bad way of doing this), and then target certain levels with services meant to raise qualifications of people in those levels (not lower expectations for them), you've got a more fair system.

Exactly.

[Big Boy Laroux]

good corollary, UL.

is that the word i should have used? corollary? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]