Thanks for continuing to raise attention to this issue. As director of media relations at MCRI, I will say that we will continue to “create equal” here in Michigan. We’re closing in on our goal, and would like to finish this fall season strong. Anyone in Michigan who’d like to volunteer would be appreciated, and any US citizen is welcome to contribute at our website or by mail.

My father’s family came from mountains to the south of eastern Europe, which makes me, in fact, Caucasian. When I think about my identity, I do not start by thinking of myself as a member of the White Race, even tho living in a largely black neighborhood makes the contrast evident.

Affirmative Action has no effect on us. My field of work, cellular geekery, is not one blacks tend to enter (altho I have a neighbor whose son will be getting out of the Army this fall with skills I can place) and my wife’s field of work is such that most nights she is the only white on the shift. It is simply that, having been involved in some small way since childhood in the struggle to achieve a nation in which people are judged by the content of their character, it troubles me to see that goal abandoned.

Furthermore the use of generalizations to track change is standard not only in demographic studies but scientific studies. The point being, if you disagree with being �lumped� then you disagree with 99% of anyone who studies science or trends. But that is your priviledge.

I grant that there are some legitimate aspects to categorization. For example, it might be prudent for a scientific study on heart disease to take into account the race of the test subject.

However, I still reject your assumption of categorization with respect to college admissions, hiring, and other typical realms where affirmative action is used.

When I said I emphasize the individual vs. the collective, this is because in things which ought to be dictated by merit, the individual is paramount.

Furthermore, the reason why such grouping is used is to say that “everyone in this group is underprivileged and lacking in opportunity.” I reject the notion of categorization because there are many individuals lacking in privilege and opportunity that are not in the group you administer to (blacks), and furthermore, that there are plenty of individuals in the group of focus which are of privilege.

To claim that affirmative action exists to remedy white racism is to claim that blacks have failed or would fail absent affirmative action (because, presumably, white racists would hold them back.) I find it silly to make such a claim when racism in society is overwhelmingly receding into oblivion (note: I define racism traditionally, and not under the “results” rationale.)

Who deserves what, when and where, and whom makes that decision? We know 50% of all hiring decisions are subjectively based and that the majority of jobs are unquantifiable in terms of being �measure� what a successful candidate on the front end of an interview would be. So who deserves what, when and where?

At least with our previous focus of discussion, affirmative action in academia, we could eliminate ALL SUBJECTIVITY by using completely objective measures like SAT, GPA, difficulty of coursework, school, etc.

Secondly, the assumption that test scores correlate to success, may be reasonable aligned (I am not sure though), but you are assuming that the primary premise of college is to have people get the highest grades. It has been statistically evidence that people who have a high �emotional IQ� perform better in society, and perform better on the job that those who have a standard �High IQ”. So is measuring someone purely based upon SAT and GPA the best ultimate indicator of success, real success anyway?

It is reasonably held and widely supported that SAT scores are correlated to the ability to do well in college. Furthermore, the test itself accurately measures the skills necessary to be successful in college. It is not the end all indicator, but it ought to be a very large indicator.

I can’t appropriately answer your arguments on “emotional IQ”, because I don’t know what we’re measuring when you say that those with such an IQ “perform better on the job.” Sticking to academia, there is a traditional and generally understood skill set required for college coursework. The SAT accurately measures it.

�My previous analysis still stands. Pay me $20.�

I stand by my demand. You made the bold offer. I make the bold reply.

Ask Lawshawn Barber [as to the positive effects of affirmative action.]

First, I said show me why affirmative action is needed now, not why it was needed in the past. You don’t attempt to answer my position. The past is not an area of dispute.

Second, this is a short sighted proposition. Simply because La Shawn was admitted under affirmative action, is not to say that she would not have been admitted to a lesser school (or the same school), and is certainly not to say that she wouldn’t have become a successsful writer (a career that, noticeably, doesn’t necessarily require a college degree to be successful in.) You’ll have to excuse me on my analysis, because I don’t know the details of La Shawn’s life.

Third, this is the same kind of proposition that Al Sharpton made when he claimed that Clarence Thomas wouldn’t be where he is now without Affirmative Action – as if all his brilliance stemmed from some white liberal helping him along. This is the same kind of proposition that Atlanta Mayor Bill Cambell made in 1996 when he said, “Everybody who is a person of color in this country has benefited from affirmative action. There has not been anybody who has gotten into college on their own, nobody who’s gotten a job on their own, no one who’s prospered as a businessman or a businesswoman on their own without affirmative action.” This screams out to the black community that you cannot survive without government handouts.

Here’s a question that’s untested and unanswerable: would these people have been admitted without Affirmative Action? We can’t say, because history never allowed us to see that path.

“Under the affirmative action regime, a black candidate that would do well at say, Penn State University, is instead accepted to say, the University of Pennsylvania, and is placed in an atmosphere that makes it hard to compete. I would conjecture that this explains why the college drop-out rate for blacks is so high.”
It actually doesn’t explain anything. You are attempting to correlate data that does not necessarily correlate. For example, for you to have a valid argument, all blacks with a 1000 SAT and all whites with a 1000 SAT would have to analyzed over a period of a couple of years. IF the rates of drop out based upon SAT score were the same, you argument would be true. IF the rates of drop out were higher for blacks, you would have to assigned the higher rate to an alternative variable.

Absent any data, this conjecture is the best I can do.

First, as far as I know, no such study exists. It probably wouldn’t be very good either, because students go through different programs, different schools, and have different lifestyles. Such a study you propose simply has too many variables.

Second, if you have an alternate explanation to that posed by Larry Elder, I’m all ears. I would suggest that as a defender of affirmative action, something which is most certainly contrary to american principles in favor of a “greater good”, I would suggest that you have a burden to show why affirmative action does not do what I claim it does. Further, I would ask for proof as to the conclusive benefits for blacks, as a whole, as you have so demanded of proof of harm against whites.

Lastly, if elimination of Affirmative Action would not revert us to pre-Civil Rights Act, then why would it be bad to eliminate Affirmative Action?

“And how it is I’m supposed to measure a “negative” or “positive” effect with respect to this population.”

My point exactly.

“I don’t buy the underlying assumption of your rationale, namely, that we should all be lumped into and judged as separate groups or classes.”
The very nature of your argument demonstrates that you don’t believe this is to be true. To truly hold to this assumption the utilization of race and any form or fashion could not be applied. Furthermore the use of generalizations to track change is standard not only in demographic studies but scientific studies. The point being, if you disagree with being “lumped” then you disagree with 99% of anyone who studies science or trends. But that is your priviledge.

[quote]I could care less if 99.99999999% of white people aren’t harmed by affirmative action (although I’d conjecture that’s a bit lower.) The point is, I care if an INDIVIDUAL (who may happen to be white, or asian, or whatever classification your collectivist mind deems adequate) is not given what they deserve based off of their time, effort, and ability.[/quote]

Who deserves what, when and where, and whom makes that decision? We know 50% of all hiring decisions are subjectively based and that the majority of jobs are unquantifiable in terms of being “measure” what a successful candidate on the front end of an interview would be. So who deserves what, when and where?

Secondly, the assumption that test scores correlate to success, may be reasonable aligned (I am not sure though), but you are assuming that the primary premise of college is to have people get the highest grades. It has been statistically evidence that people who have a high “emotional IQ” perform better in society, and perform better on the job that those who have a standard “High IQ”. So is measuring someone purely based upon SAT and GPA the best ultimate indicator of success, real success anyway?

Finally, I think it convenient that the conservative typically flip flops from a social perspective to an individual perspective when it fits what he or she wants to “get out” of the argument.

For example, the argument for the war on Iraq (as WWII) is one of the preservation of the social good, with the good of the individual (solider) potentially sacrficed for the social good. Very utilitarian, like Spock said in ST II the good of the many out weigh the good of the few. There are more examples, but blah.

Yet, when this same “social” perspective is attempted to be applied to an issue such as affirmative action, the need of the INDIVIDUAL suddenly is much greater than the need of the many.

“My previous analysis still stands. Pay me $20.”

Just say that you can’t prove it. There is no need for ego’s here.

“And here’s some food for thought: what positive effect does affirmative action have for anyone (that is, here and now, not 40 years ago)?”
Ask Lawshawn Barber.

“Under the affirmative action regime, a black candidate that would do well at say, Penn State University, is instead accepted to say, the University of Pennsylvania, and is placed in an atmosphere that makes it hard to compete. I would conjecture that this explains why the college drop-out rate for blacks is so high.”
It actually doesn’t explain anything. You are attempting to correlate data that does not necessarily correlate. For example, for you to have a valid argument, all blacks with a 1000 SAT and all whites with a 1000 SAT would have to analyzed over a period of a couple of years. IF the rates of drop out based upon SAT score were the same, you argument would be true. IF the rates of drop out were higher for blacks, you would have to assigned the higher rate to an alternative variable.

That is why Larry Elder’s argument may or may not be true, but until proven with a control group, it is like you said…….Conjecture.

“Now if you can show positively that killing affirmative action would revert the country to segregation and Jim Crow, I’ll pay you $20. ”

Didn’t say it would…don’t think it would…

Also, that stat you put up is a little misleading. UVa won’t report it, but the truth of the matter is that blacks tend to take significantly longer to graduate (up to 6 years, vs. the traditional 4.)

See http://www.discriminations.us/storage/001913.html for more on this.

I had another friend that got into UVA with a 1050 SAT and a 2.5 GPA.

That’s very interesting.

The graduation rates of Blacks and whites at UVa are about the same. In fact, the graduation rates of both are about 85%.

Furthermore, unless one was from Northern Virginia while the other was from the other part of the state, such a difference in SAT scores seems a bit much.

My previous analysis still stands. Pay me $20.

And here’s some food for thought: what positive effect does affirmative action have for anyone (that is, here and now, not 40 years ago)? It’s now becoming obvious that affirmative action does effect the admittance of blacks to selective schools, but for all schools, without affirmative action or not, the number of blacks enrolled would be the same. Under the affirmative action regime, a black candidate that would do well at say, Penn State University, is instead accepted to say, the University of Pennsylvania, and is placed in an atmosphere that makes it hard to compete. I would conjecture that this explains why the college drop-out rate for blacks is so high. Of course, no need to conjecture; according to Larry Elder:

“Affirmative action is also a big factor behind the higher than average drop-out rate among blacks in colleges and universities. In the California UC system, only 7.2% of minorities admitted under “special criteria” (code for affirmative action) graduated in four years, and less than 50% in six years. “White or other” students graduated at rates of 34.1% and 77.6%, respectively. This is the sports equivalent of athletes who could perform at the AA level, struggling at AAA ball. And those who could perform well at AAA, failing in the major leagues.”

Now if you can show positively that killing affirmative action would revert the country to segregation and Jim Crow, I’ll pay you $20.

” will tell you what, when you can statistically prove that affirmative action or any other attempt and correcting the historical problem of white racism in America has truly had a negative effect on the white population as a whole, I will give you $20 ”

I will wait…

I had another friend that got into UVA with a 1050 SAT and a 2.5 GPA.

Both were privileged. One the daughter of a lawyer, the other the son of an engineer and a judge.

Now you guess which one is black and which is white.

The irony is, the black guy failed out miserably because he couldn’t compete, and of course the girl was denied her first choice and a better school because of her skin color.

Now pay me $20.

Did you make the same argument when you read through history and learned about the homestead acts as well as past and current cases of white priviledge?

I will tell you what, when you can statistically prove that affirmative action or any other attempt and correcting the historical problem of white racism in America has truly had a negative effect on the white population as a whole, I will give you $20

My grandmother once told me, “You have to be nice to the Negroes. They can’t do for themselves like white people can.”

I’m sure she would have been gratified to discover that her statement was the official policy of the Democratic Party. She would no more have voted for a Republican than she would have let the word “n*r” pass her lips.

Regards,
Ric Locke

1. George Bush
2. George Bush
3. George Bush

Why you wanna kick ‘im when he’s down?? Poor ole James David Dickson……..what is he, an actor? Sara Michelle GELLAR? Michael Clarke DUNCAN?? (A’ight bro, don’t whup me…you’s a big brotha) John Dork KERRY? (Clearly, Bloggies – King of the Dorks.)

Anyway, Mr. Dickson is simply expressing his infantile frustration & desperation as he KNOWS his days are numbered.

Likewise for middle class black kids that are not quite as smart as trailer park inhabitants. (Yes, test scores prove it, James David. Might you be one of those non-deserving uppity black boys? Still begging for that crutch to lean on? Waaah!!)

You see, if it wuddn for that one boneheaded Supreme Court Justice that cast the deciding vote in the Law School case, naively opining something like….it’ll be okay in another 25 years of racist application of race in admissions (Huh?) – well, let’s just say that Aff. Action would be obsolete.

I say Government-sanctioned racism and/or quotas-preferences disguised as fair & equitable treatment of all – the ORIGINAL Affirmative Action – will be essentially outlawed in 3-5 years, at best no longer practiced for fear of lawsuits.

Sowwy bout dat J.D.D….you need to go hit the books, son. Your black brain works just fine; please do apply it one day. It’s a terrible thing to waste.