I was asked to explain why I believe race preferences are immoral.
Immorality is the state of being immoral. An immoral thing is that which is contrary to accepted principles of right and wrong. Morality is conformity to ideals of right human conduct. For a primer on right human conduct, I direct you to God’s word, the Bible.
Natural rights, as well as those found in the Constitution, belong to individuals, not groups. If an individual is discriminated against because of his race, he should be compensated, not his entire racial group. There is no such thing as Group Rights. An individual has a right to seek redress from injury from a particular institution, not an entire race.
Skin color preferences bestow undeserved advantage on some and undeserved burdens on others. Such an idea is anathema to democracy and freedom. Why should people be compensated for a wrong they did not suffer? Why should some be penalized for a wrong they did not commit?
A person’s sex or skin color doesn’t entitle him to special favors or treatment. Skin color or sex doesn’t entitle anyone to receive less or more consideration. Giving one group preferred status over another group is unjust, especially when done by our own government. It is against the law and in violation of the U.S. Constitution, regardless of intentions.
The idea that we can “fix” history by preferring the race once discriminated against over the race once doing the discriminating is flat out wrong, not to mention counterintuitive.
In his brief for the Brown v. Board of Education, the case that declared government-sanctioned race discrimination illegal, Thurgood Marshall wrote, “Distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and invidious that a state, bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere.”
I’ll concede this: I believe social engineers’ hearts were in the right place, but they had no idea what their skin color schemes would look like thirty years out. Thanks to them, we’re still entangled in race debates and race politics. These things will not pass until individual rights regain their proper place in this country.
Any questions?
Addendum: “Affirmative action tends to undermine the spirit of individual initiative. Such is human nature; why struggle to succeed when you can have something for nothing?” — Arthur Ashe, Days of Grace
“There is no logical reason why conditions today, so obviously very much better than they were for our forebears, somehow call for Victimology where conditions for people two steps past slavery did not. Victimology is, ironically, a luxury of widened opportunities.” — John McWhorter, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 65 comments }
Nicely put. I concur that rights belong to individuals and not groups…unless that group happens to be “All men…“
La Shawn,
Posts like this are why I love your writing so much. Now many may take offense at what you have to say, but the sheer logic and morality of what you have to say is beyond reproach. If I have been wronged in some way, then I deserve to be set right. This has nothing to do with my neighbor down the street who might be of the same ethnic extraction as me.
Thurgood Marshall was absolutely right in what he said, and it holds true as much today as it did when he said it. Like you, I believe that those who sought to set up preferences for those who for so long had been discriminated against had their hearts in the right place, but we all know that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Many people will tell you that these policies are necessary because discrimination still exists. Yet, racial preferences are nothing more than a continuation of institutional discrimination, except in reverse. Like you, I believe that making distinctions based on race and/or sex has served to prolong the “race debate” in this country long past the point that it should be such a devisive issue in our political process.
I can understand the reluctance on the part of the recipients of racial preferences to giving up their preferred status. Look how hard it was to wrest them away from the previous beneficiaries of institutionalized racial preferences. You know, when you got a good thing going on, why would you want to give it up?
I am just not comfortable with granting one group a leg up simply based on skin color or sex, and I know that I would feel that way even if I (or my children) were in the group getting the preference.
“Natural rights, as well as those found in the Constitution, belong to individuals, not groups. If an individual is discriminated against because of his race, he should be compensated, not his entire racial group. There is no such thing as Group Rights. An individual has a right to seek redress from injury from a particular institution, not an entire race.” – LB
My questions – Given this stance, is there a such thing as a group wrong? Is it then possible for a people to suffer any wrong collectively, from both individual and collective positions? If not, then wouldn’t much of Western civilization be directly called into question?
Social phenomena like nationalism, patriotism, and identity politics would be severely undermined. Racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, gender and other groups could not express solidarity to have grievances addressed under this position; even class-action suits wouldn’t make sense. However, If group wrongs do exist, then how does your perspective redress those wrongs effectively?
“Skin color preferences bestow undeserved advantage on some and undeserved burdens on others. Such an idea is anathema to democracy and freedom. Why should people be compensated for a wrong they did not suffer? Why should some be penalized for a wrong they did not commit?” – LB
If persons in one group still suffer in our American democratic system thanks to the current socioeconomic choices made in the present day by others who benefit from their groups’ past misdeeds toward the first group, choices that continue to undermine and disenfranchise the best efforts of the first group of people to achieve in our socioeconomic realm on their own merit and agency, then people in the first group deserve some redress for the problems caused by current choices. The second group, owners of wealth, influence and production, deserved to penalized only for the choices they have made at the present time against the first group.
Laissez-faire identity politics does nothing for the present day wrongs inflicted by American intergroup warfare. Democracy and freedom are never served by nonchalance towards the unfairly gained advantages individuals in certain groups garner for the benefit of their groups only. I care nothing for ‘fixing history’, but today’s misappropriations of wealth and power are suspect when used to keep me and mine economically poor and politically powerless.
LaShawn;
Understanding the underlying reasoning behind your stance, I would submit that it flies in the face of the reality and realpolitik in which we live.
Question: The natural consequence of adopting your stand societally would mean that we pursue whatever amounts to justice for individual that are discriminated against or injured in an ad-hoc, “onesey and twosey” basis. Given our presently onerous burden the courts now work through, do you believe this is a realistic path to take…or are you just “wishing out loud”?
Keep up the good work, though.
The Duke of Churl
James -
My questions – Given this stance, is there a such thing as a group wrong? Is it then possible for a people to suffer any wrong collectively, from both individual and collective positions? If not, then wouldn’t much of Western civilization be directly called into question?
Western civilization undergirds our appreciation for the rule of law, James. No other civilization in existence now or since puts such faith in the individual to forge his own way without government impediment. Despite what some think, western values are superior to all others anywhere on the planet. The idea that individuals have certain rights and that we do not exist to serve the government is radically extraordinary! I don’t know about you, but I’d rather take my chances under that kind of system any day, even if I end up with nothing!
Unfortunately, western values are being undermined by creeping anti-western sentiment on our own soil. Shameful.
Social phenomena like nationalism, patriotism, and identity politics would be severely undermined. Racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, gender and other groups could not express solidarity to have grievances addressed under this position; even class-action suits wouldn’t make sense. However, If group wrongs do exist, then how does your perspective redress those wrongs effectively?
I don’t mean to imply that class action lawsuits should be abolished. In my view, class action suits and group preferences are two different things. What legal, indentifiable harm can an entire race claim to justify blanket preferred status? I don’t care what anyone says; there are none! And remember, the government has no money of its own. If it decides to rob Peter to pay Paul, it’s also robbing me! And I don’t like it.
If persons in one group still suffer in our American democratic system thanks to the current socioeconomic choices made in the present day by others who benefit from their groups’ past misdeeds toward the first group, choices that continue to undermine and disenfranchise the best efforts of the first group of people to achieve in our socioeconomic realm on their own merit and agency, then people in the first group deserve some redress for the problems caused by current choices. The second group, owners of wealth, influence and production, deserved to penalized only for the choices they have made at the present time against the first group.
James, there is no way you can prove that blacks as a group are suffering illegal socioeconomic harm because of anything whites as a group are doing in the present. We are individuals with different talents and motivations and free will. We make our own choices and decisions, and unfortunately, sometimes we make the wrong ones. I don’t want to be penalized because of someone else’s circumstances, and I’m certain others don’t want to, either.
I care nothing for “fixing history”, but today’s misappropriations of wealth and power are suspect when used to keep me and mine economically poor and politically powerless.
I, personally, would rather government and other people leave me alone. And I, as long as I have breath in my body, will never, ever, let this sentence pass through my lips, whether true or not: “[T]oday’s misappropriations of wealth and power are suspect when used to keep me and mine economically poor and politically powerless.
That’s victimhood talk, which is repugnant to this black woman.
James,
But how do you identify those that are wronged? An how do you tell the ones who benefit from a groups past misdeeds?
Since we are an open, mobile society, group membership is not set into stone.
I am listening, at the moment, to two of my co-workers, both ‘off the boat’ from Ukraine. They are firmly middle class and white-skinned. They are benefiting from conditions in America. Should they be held accountable for any groups’ past misdeeds?
Because some people benefited unfairly in a group, should all members of that group be held accountable? And if so, how will you determine group membership?
If you live in Ithica, aren’t you benefiting from the dispossesion of the Cayuga nation? Do you have plans to redress this continuing injustice?
When do you stop redressing the harm of previous generations? When will you redress the harm caused today while redressing yesterday, and so on?
La Shawn,
It seems to me that racial prejudices often hurt the people they are intended to help because it cheapens their accomplishments. E.g., when Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, most people didn’t think, “a black guy is the most qualified nominee for the Supreme Court,” they thought, “Clarence Thomas is the best qualified black guy for the Supreme Court.” IOW, they knew that, because of racial preferences, Bush was looking for a black nominee.
What do you think?
Greg
GREAT article, LaShawn!
LaShawn, I am pleased to have discovered your blog via Greg Krehbiel. Like you, I am opposed to institutional racial preferences, but not exactly for the reasons you stated.
“Skin color preferences bestow undeserved advantage on some and undeserved burdens on others. Such an idea is anathema to democracy and freedom.”
I do not believe advantages and burdens must be “deserved” to be legitimate. This sort of reasoning can be used to justify a great deal of mischief. Most of us enjoy advantages we do not deserve.
“Why should people be compensated for a wrong they did not suffer? Why should some be penalized for a wrong they did not commit?”
A fair point, and I agree.
“A person’s sex or skin color doesn’t entitle him to special favors or treatment. Skin color or sex doesn’t entitle anyone to receive less or more consideration.”
Well, putting sex on the level of skin color is a mistake. Sex does indeed entitle people to special favors and treatment. To use one (hopefully) non-controversial example, women should be given preference when it comes to non-combat military positions. Similarly, men with families should be given preference when it comes to full-time employment. Race is something else altogether: unlike sex, race has no intrinsic moral qualities or special responsibilities.
“Giving one group preferred status over another group is unjust, especially when done by our own government.”
Not necessarily, LaShawn. There are all kinds of groups. Some groups are bad, some are good, some are indifferent, and some have special functions and responsibilities. Government should give preferred status to good groups and to others as circumstances warrant. However, since racial classifications do not have inherent qualities of “goodness” or “badness”, or other inherent functional qualities, the government should be indifferent to them.
Just my 2 cents.
In my view, the concept racial preference is best understood as an attempt to promote “equality of opportunity” in a social context marked by pervasive inequalities. A system in which many institutional criteria and practices work to impede a fair assessment of the capabilities of working-class people of color.
These criteria and practices are often not deliberately designed to discriminate and exclude; the fact remains however that they function in a variety of subtle institutional practices that circumscribe mobility in contemporary America.
In that regard, I can see how an entire group can become disenfranchised. Hypothetically, if we consider the term “race preference”, it’s entirely reasonable to conclude that the lack of a social utility designed to address the issue of a “lack of equal opportunity” for blacks, can amount in effect to preferential treatment for whites.
“What legal, indentifiable harm can an entire race claim to justify blanket preferred status? I don’’t care what anyone says; there are none! And remember, the government has no money of its own. If it decides to rob Peter to pay Paul, it’s also robbing me! And I don’’t like it.” - LB
Some would argue that African American chattel slavery, coupled with sharecropping, widespread housing, worker and voter discrimination, and the resultant poverty and disease created from such conditions applies here. I am not arguing this, but I understand why some people do. Others argue that the usurpation of native Americans from their lands through violent white encroachment and disease also applies. Again, these are not my arguments, but I understand them, and raise them to answer your question.
Also, the use of tax money for whatever purposes can be logically addressed by citizens, but only in certain contexts. If money a person provides the government is used to give free breakfasts to needy schoolchildren, that person may not believe that money being used in a way that could assist them, as that person isn’t a needy schoolchild. The person may write their representatives in Congress to gain support for the government ending that particular use of government money, but the person is forgetting a very basic fact. Once he gives money to the government, the money is gone. The money belongs to the government. It’s no longer your money La Shawn.
Sure, I’d encourage people to stay involved in politics enough to have opinions about what government money should be spent on, but let’s not pretend you are being robbed if the poor schoolchildren eat Honey Nut Cheerios before first period.
James,
We do not provide the money to the government. We do not give them money.
They take it.
If you’ve ever had enough income to fill out a full 1044, or reviewed a full pay stub, check out the money the government derived from you that you did not give.
“James, there is no way you can prove that blacks as a group are suffering illegal socioeconomic harm because of anything whites as a group are doing in the present. We are individuals with different talents and motivations and free will. We make our own choices and decisions, and unfortunately, sometimes we make the wrong ones. I don’t want to be penalized because of someone else’s circumstances, and I’m certain others don’t want to, either.” – LB
The problem is that minorities in every sense are often the ones least knowledgeable about their political and economic status (especially in America), to the point that proving beyond a reasonable doubt illegal socioeconomic harm perpetuated by a majority group in a society becomes next to impossible in everything but the most extreme cases. Even then, some members of the majority will refuse to their dying breath to believe the proof, irrefutable or not. Today, some still deny the Holocaust, for example.
I will say this: laws change. As a barometer of popular will, laws are often altered to mirror popular sentiment. I do not believe members of any American majority, racial, sexual, religious, etc, are blameless when they benefit from social institutions, often created to oppress minorities of some type for other group’s benefit, they are unwilling to alter towards more inclusive, more egalitarian states, and when they refuse to question those aforementioned benefits in favor of enjoying their individual gains without concern for the overall social effects of such personal wealth.
Being white, straight, and male does help; my blackness is in no way tainted or cheapened by remembering that. It just makes me work harder. Even if you are an immigrant from Austria turned Governor of California, you can’t pretend that your story of escape from Communism to the American capitalist order (embellished slightly for the cameras) is indicative of the promise America holds for every immigrant. Our American culture of capitalistic privilege is not blameless; far from it. Women, especially women of color, endure glass ceilings of stymied advancement in every American industry and political institution. African American males aged 18-25, my demographic, vote least and are arrested most. Behavioral minorities such as the lesbian/ gay/ bisexual/ transgendered/ questioning community endure public and private ridicule and political disenfranchisement in all stages of American life – in our schools, workplaces, churches, legislatures, literally from the cradle to the grave. Again, my blackness is in no way tainted or cheapened by remembering this. It just makes me work harder
I don’t need to prove this socioeconomic harm illegal to prove it immoral or un-American. These group-affecting harms deserve immediate redress by our system.
Oh, and school lunches are not race based.
Outstanding!!!
The voice of reason! Thank you, La Shawn! You sound like a younger version of Myrah Kirkwood, Michigan Republican candidate for Congress. When are you announcing a candidacy? We could use your voice of reason in the Senate or house!
James,
Try to get a job at a company that is subject to regulation, and see if being a non-white, non-male or non-hetero is a deterent.
I’ve said it before, that I don’t mind race/gender preferences when used as tie breakers; but all to often in corporate America they are being used as the sole reason for filling a posistion.
You’re wrong that men in your demographic are arrested the most. For that to be true, every black youth in America would have to be behind bars. The percentage of black males arrested is higher compared to black males as a whole, yes. But that statistic is meaningless without the crime and economic statistics that go with it.
And voting least… if they don’t vote (aside from the prohib. felons), how is that anyones fault or responsibility other than their own? And the felons, discounting the occasional innocent behind bars, are also not voting because of a decision they once made…
Ahnold’s story of immigrant success may be too cheery and exceptional, but your view of things seems just as skewed, albeit in another direction.
Very well put, LaShawn. This is the most logical and well thought out explanation I’ve ever read for why race-based preferences are wrong.
“We do not provide the money to the government. We do not give them money.
They take it.” – SCSIwuzzy
Ok. Unless you are willing to fight the government to take back your tax contribution, your tears may cease.
“Oh, and school lunches are not race based.” – SCSIwuzzy
Obviously. You missed the point of that earlier example. Everything isn’t always about race, sir.
“I’ve said it before, that I don’’t mind race/gender preferences when used as tie breakers; but all to often in corporate America they are being used as the sole reason for filling a position.” – SCSIwuzzy
If corporate America or American universities actually use race as the single, solitary determinate for entrance into their hallowed halls of privilege, that is both regrettable and illogical. The reality is that these institutions don’t pick any brother off the street to learn and work for them, as long as they’re Black. You have to have the requisite, demonstrable skill to achieve in those realms as a measure of survival. So when racial or other minorities achieve in corporate America, given the opportunity to sink or swim through affirmative action policies, are we as public critics to perpetually question ad infinitum their very presence in the boardrooms where multimillion dollar deals are struck?
If your answer is yes, then your problem is not ‘reverse’ racism, publically sanctioned race preferences, or government/ corporate redress of past and current wrongs. Your problem is Black achievement. Perhaps you should clarify your position; I don’t want to misunderstand you.
I just discovered your blog, La Shawn. Really great insights.
As far as your statement that rights belong to individuals and not groups, I concur, but want to take it one step further. Groups, as such, don’t even exist. “Groups” are ways of thinking about aggregates of individuals, but have no real existence. “Whites” don’t exist, only individuals with various shades of light pinkish skin. “Blacks” don’t exist. Only individuals with various shades of brownish skin. But “whites” never did anything to “blacks”. Certain, specific, evil individuals, who happened to have pinkish skin owned slaves who had brownish skin. Those individuals were evil and culpable of great crimes against their slaves. But “whites” aren’t guilty, and “blacks” aren’t victims.
There is no collective guilt of all those who happen to have the same (or similar) shades of pinking skin. Guilt or innocence is a moral judgement of the actions of individuals. Guilt of one evil soul is not transferrable to the account of an innocent other because of membership in a non-existent, purely imaginary, grouping in the minds of some people.
That’s a novel perspective around here, Beverley. Welcome to the blog!
LB, I’ll comment fo’ sho’. :0)
We are to question their being in the boardroom if they weren’t the most qualified candidate to get there. Institutions of higher learning such as the Univeristy of Michigan, as well as others vociferously practice admission policies designed to reach the right balance of diversity. This, by its nature, discriminates against candidates who are most iminently qualified, regardless of their color. Group redress is proving day in and day out to be a failure. It continues to polarize our nation. That itself shows its incorrectness. Filling a diversity profile at a university is an admirable goal if all candidates were the most qualified. However, for universities to reserve admission slots to students who are less qualified is a racial preference and is wrong. The matters most considered should be achievement and financial need. Period. Affirmative Action is a quick fix gone wrong. The real problem lies in the education (actually lack thereof) that these African-American students recieve. We should be focused on fixing that problem most, so that those who come through our schools are incredibly qualified no matter what their skin color is. Affirmative Action just puts a thumb in the dike and does nothing to ebb the floodwaters.
“We are to question their being in the boardroom if they weren’t the most qualified candidate to get there.” – Chris Roberts
Mr. Roberts, given your comment, I would say that you have a problem with Black achievement. Black people, proving themselves an asset to the university or company they work for should not suffer the undue scrutiny and unneeded condemnation of others simply because of the possible method of their acceptance into the workplace. If the nephew of the president of a record company works as an A&R simply because he’s the nephew of the President, you don’t get mad with him after he signs the next Eminem.
My two cents: Great essay, La Shawn: short, direct, and to the point. Very simple, which is a good thing.
Thank you much.
James,
So, if someone objects to an unqualified person holding a posistion, and got the posistion largley based on sex/gender, they have a problem with black achievement?
Neither SCSI nor Chris said anything about minority/gender being a negative (in and of themselves), only that when a job holder’s primary qualification is that quality, that is a problem. But I guess at Cornell, that’s having a problem with Black Achievement.
As for companies hiring any brother off the street… no, they don’t. But that doesn’t mean that everyone given a job is the most qualified, either.
In the old days, somebody’s cousin, who was maybe lacking in skills or polish, would often get a job or promotion over a more qualified person. Still happens in some companies.
These days, nepotism is replaced or supplemented with quota based HR practices.
Now, I can say that unknown to me at the time, my first job in corporate America was largely awarded to me because I am a minority gal. When my check boxes said the right thing, my application went to the top of the stack. And having met 2 of the other applicants, I know I was not the most qualified person for the job. But HR decided that it would look good for diversity if they had a redskin at role call.
Since then, I have worked double time to make sure I do fill the job properly, but I know plenty of others that don’t feel obliged to do so.
Your reasoning, and the morality thereof, are flawless. These are things that you can say, as a Black lady, that I should not say, as a white man. (And you should say them, because they are true.) I just wouldn’t volunteer that opinion, any more than I would tell a grieving mother that she should be glad her child died quickly and painlessly. It might be true. I might think it. But, it is not my own grief.
However racial justicce has been very important to me, since I started high school, thirty nine years ago. So,may I suggest another approach to the same problem, a practical one? We have, in this country, two race problems. One is economic disparity. It is measured. It is less than the “race industry” says it is. It still exists. The other is a poor opinion of Blacks, held not only by some whites, but by all too many Blacks. The various affirmative action schemes are designed to remedy the disparity. They may, in a few cases, do so. As a practical matter, when we factor in the costs of administration, investigation, reporting, court cases as we argue whether a given program is good enough or too much, and given that we may not be getting much more than we would if Black people were just left to get ahead on their own, we may have long ago reached a point of diminishing returns. It’s hard to be sure, but the mere fact that there is room for doubt brings us to the other race problem. That one, I have no doubt, is exacerbated by affirmative action. The flip side of set asides is “You’re not able to make it on your own.” That’s horrible to say, just one time. But, every a.a.(NotA.A.) program repeats it, many times a day. This furthers disparagement by whites and despair by Blacks. If I may be forgiven for pointing out the obvious, it also, ultimately, increases the economic disparity.
There is another difficulty with a.a. It is part of an overall political strategy that has used various ethnic groups at various times in American history. The trouble is, corraling blocs of Black votes, or a hundred and fifty years ago, Irish ones, is about symbolism, not substance. Since the people who are using race in politics are Democrats, who then use their power to stunt the growth of the economy and thus to limit opportunity for all, including Blacks we all suffer, and the poorest most of all. Tammany Hall eventually gave way. Writing racial prejudice into law postpones the day when Blacks vote their real pocketbooks. That’s good for no one.
Yours in Christ,
Michael
I have no problem with “black achievment.” I push all my students very hard to achieve to the highest of their capabilities. Isn’t the method of the workplace to hire the most qualified candidates? If it were your business with your hard earned money at stake, wouldn’t you want the most qualified individuals? I am not condemning the individual, I am condeming the current system in place. Like I said, fix the system that provides African-Americans with the tools to be the best qualified and it’s all moot. In the interim, it is not right to impose a flawed system. The thumb is still in the dike. Build a dam, and faster please.
James,
You need to pull the chip off your shoulder. Being opposed to supperficial preferences and quotas does not mean that I (or Chris, IB) have problems with ‘black achievement’.
Once you spend some time in the real world (not academia, not government jobs), maybe we can have a better understanding.
“So, if someone objects to an unqualified person holding a position, and got the posistion largley based on sex/gender, they have a problem with black achievement?” – 5thSister
Yes, given that the supposedly unqualified person is doing the job well. Whatever happened to rising to an occasion to achieve an important goal in this country? Is that allowance only made for President Bush? Before September 11th he was widely panned as the least qualified person to be President of the United States, especially given his meager foreign policy knowledge and economic policy understanding. (All those trips to Camp David didn’t help, either.) Today, many polls judging his fitness and effectiveness as President have him ahead of Sen. Kerry. In general, Americans were okay with Pres. Bush ‘rising to the occasion’ in the most important job in the world, so why can’t Black Americans who do achieve well in their positions engender the same respect?
” Isn’t the method of the workplace to hire the most qualified candidates?” – Chris Roberts
Of course it is. I never advocate the hiring of any unqualified person for any position, ever, regardless of whatever background they possess. What affirmative action has accomplished for the corporate and academic worlds as I understand them is a expanded redefinition of the general criteria “qualified candidate”. Now, every applicant needs both the previous job skill and knowledge of groups outside their own narrative. For example, an advertising firm populated with straight white men only and contracted to create television spots to promote McDonald’s to urban minorities may benefit from the presence of urban minorities on its staff.
Without tokenizing minority employees, or asking them to provide the ‘insert-race-here’ view on subjects, one can include persons from various backgrounds within a corporation to further create the opportunity for differing opinion that creates better products and better services. In short, a diversified workforce in every level of the corporate world allows for the opportunity for increased discourse and therefore increased points of view. This allows companies and firms worldwide to make money through the ability to relate to and provide services for more clients on their clients’s terms, hopefully preventing, at the very least, Straight White Males Advertising, Inc. from putting a Black man in a chicken suit on a commercial for McDonald’s new Chicken Selects.
James,
You’re missing the point. If they are UNQUALIFIED, how are they doing the job well? Black, white, red, yellow, brown and pink (and family ties) all should take a back seat to QUALIFIED. When 2 or more applicants are equally matched, then the other details are valid.
Your McDonalds example only hold up if everyone involved was qualified in the first place, btw.
Tossing out your opinion that Bush isn’t qualified to be President doesn’t help your arguement, it hurts it. Widely panned as the least qualified president? By whom? Liberals in academia and the media, along with the oposistion party… who said the same about GHWB and Ron Reagan. He had more foreign policy experience than Carter, Mondale (in ‘76) Dukakis or Clinton (and probably Gore, but you can debate what his tennure as Veep gave him).
” . . . from putting a Black man in a chicken suit on a commercial for McDonald’s new Chicken Selects.”
So blacks can’t do this kind of work? Why?
John C J,
Only if it isn’t a straight white man that put them in the suits.
If I were hiring – and a black person didn’t want to do the JOB – and it MIGHT be a chicken suit – I’d find someone else!
Beleive that!
I also agree that was a great post, LaShawn.
I think too many people are looking for simple correlations. That is, if you give a person preference in hiring for a job, then that closes out opportunity for the one not hired – end of story.
But it’s not the end of the story, really. So someone gets hired for a job. It may be because they’re best qualified, it may be because they’re a minority, or it may be because they’re a qualified minority. Maybe they’re unqualified, but they’re a desired minority. Unless you’re talking about a government job, where you practically have guaranteed lifetime employment, it really doesn’t matter in the long run. Either they’ll be able to do the job they were hired for, or they won’t. Time will tell.
Personal anecdote. I applied to a company that didn’t recruit at my school; the company generally only hired from certain schools, and pre-interviewed the candidates. They almost never accepted unsolicited applications. Well, that year, they had been dinged by EEO for not having enough women and minorities – irregardless of the fact that it was hard as h*ll to get anyone but locals to live in a small town out in the middle of nowhere, but that’s irrelevant to government number-crunchers. Upshot was, being female with a master’s degree got me an interview. Did it get me hired? Maybe, maybe not. I was certainly qualified, and with exactly the credentials and area of research that they were looking for. I got three job offers from different departments, and picked the one I wanted.
Now, lots of people would say that affirmative action got me in. Probably, and very likely did. But I wouldn’t have been able to STAY in without being able to do the work, and do it better than more than 50% of the employees. I’ve been through 5 downsizings, plus 11 years of annual forced rankings in some highly politicized departments, and after 24 years, I’m still employed by the same company. I’ve had some terrific opportunities, and some really tough times. And I can honestly say that I believe I earned it all on ability and effort. During the same period, I’ve seen others, both minorities and white males, fall by the wayside. Many of them had educations from better schools than I did, had all the right looks and behaviors, knew all the right people, and so on. But when it came down to it, they couldn’t or wouldn’t do the job. Some were too busy focusing on plans for the next job; some thought that they didn’t have to work; some used others or took credit for others’ work. They’re gone. But I’m still here.
Oh, and that AA piece? I also got 3 other job offers, plus 17 rejections. So was AA helpful to me? Perhaps a little bit. But I think that effort, perseverence, talent, and willingness to learn were far, far more factors in getting me the job. And AA has been irrelevant in keeping it.
Oh, want to REALLY get your fill of anti-woman, anti-minority attitudes? Trying working in Europe. Better yet, try working in Japan or Korea. Trying working in the Middle East. Try working as a woman in a man’s world, where it’s illegal to travel without a father/brother/husband in attendance, or where being ignored rather than verbally insulted and physically ejected is a relief. I’ve done all of those, and let me tell you, Americans have it so good and don’t even appreciate it.
Affirmative action, while making the workplace more diverse, can and does leave out more qualified candidates becuase the most influential criteria is race and not qualifications. Once they get the job and prove themselves, than that’s fine, but let each individual company decide to take that chance rather than be compelled to by the government. The consumer marketplace is so competitive that companies have no choice but to look at people from all groups. Just don’t make race the issue. That’s what affirmative action does.
You guys are a lot more optimistic than I am. In my admittedly limited experience, it seems to me that unless someone within the institutional structure is actively looking to diversify the candidate pool, then it will look the same as it always has. And that’s not necessarily indicative of racism.
To use one my now-favorite examples, one might argue that at the collegiate level, at least, there should be some reflective diversity within the ranks of head football coaches, since many of the schools are public institutions. (This is different from the NFL, which is comprised of privately-owned entities.) Now, when she was at Stanford, Dr. Condoleeza Rice sat on the selection panels for at least two head coaches, Dennis Green and Tyrone Willingham. If you check the records, you’ll see that each of them went on to be very successful at Stanford. Would they have gotten the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities had Dr. Rice not been on the committee? Maybe, maybe not. Statistically, I’ll be generous and say that it’s highly unlikely.
All that to say that I agree that private entities have the right to do what they want. I will also grant overt racial discrimination is wrong in whatever direction it flows. But what of de facto discrimination? If Condi hadn’t been on that panel,and hadn’t really supported their candidacies, those guys probably wouldn’t have gotten hired. Not because the panel was racist, but because the other coaches under consideration would have gotten more attention. I don’t have a problem with the government playing a “Condi” role, saying, “what about him?”
(not to mention that the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action have been white women. Somehow that point gets lost in the discussion.)
Thanks for joining the discussion, Avery. I guess I’m a purist, and given human nature, purist notions just won’t work in the real world. I imagine a place where we are judged on our merits and our performance, not our skin tone. What I think people are afraid of is what you said: what about him? What about the person, for example, with lesser qualifications, but when given a chance, excels?
The problem is that social engineers are too afraid and nervous to remove race from consideration because of a perception, real of otherwise, that white people will naturally overlook blacks but for “diversity” mandates. I’m naive and optimistic enough to give it a chance, at least.
And about white women being one of the biggest beneficiaries, I am aware and I agree. We just need to dismantled all skin color and sex preference policies and try something else. The existing policies stink.
I must disagree with Avery: that diversity should be at the collegiate level since they are largely public institutions. Private institutions are where “diversity” ought to be implemented the *most*, of one decides to do such a thing. As in, if the directors of a private institutions feel that this or that group has had a tough time in our society in general, and therefore ought to be accorded certain advantages within their organization
This is sort of what the NFL is trying to do, although it seems they are doing it badly (the coaching incident of last year).
The government (and I hate to imply that a public institution consitutes ‘government’) ought to to be involved in ‘race’ either way.
last line… ought NOT to be involed in ‘race’ either way
“The problem is that social engineers are too afraid and nervous to remove race from consideration because of a perception, real of otherwise, that white people will naturally overlook blacks but for “diversity mandates.” I’m naive and optimistic enough to give it a chance, at least.” – LB
such worries don’t make economic sense.
Thomas Sowell (one of my favorite economists and authors) points out in his Basic Economics that “While it is obvious that discrimination imposes a cost on those being discriminated against, in the form of lost opportunities for higher incomes, it is also true that discrimination can impose costs on those who do the discriminating, where they too lose opportunities for higher incomes. For example, when a landlord refuses to rent an apartment to people from the ‘wrong’ group, that can mean leaving the apartment vacant longer.
Clearly, that represents a loss of rent – if this is a free market. However, if there is rent control, with a surplus of applicants, then such discrimination costs the landlord nothing.”
discrimination in a free market is expensive to employers.
when price floors and price ceilings are set, however, that cost is passed on to those who are the object of an employer’s biases. the surest way to guarantee equal opportunity is not through legalized quotas or ‘affirmative action’ – it’s through free market guarantees.
- lee
To Social Darwinians among us…
You’re missing the point about Affirmative Action. Now you know how blacks, native Americans and Latinos felt at least until the late 60s. How’s it feel? YOU are the whiners, not them. ALL of us have benefitted from the efforts of blacks to get the rights and benefits of the Declaration and the Constitution extended to them and other minorities. We are a far better country because of THEIR efforts and the dignity and nobility with which they pursued justice. Former CA governor, Pete Wilson, said that 30 years were enough for previous inequities to be reversed. Was 30-40 years enough? That is what we are debating. Some think it was and some think we still need a little more time. And please listen to James L. Jr. HE is in touch with the real world.
Stan in San Diego
Stan,
LOL
Anyway, for your argument to work, you’d have to assume that the people opposed to preferences are only opposed to them when they are on the short end of the stick. (though I have no doubt there are people that object to them for just that reason, but it is not all black and white [pardon the semi-pun])
I have been able to benefit from these programs, LaShawn has, James Lamb has and many others who frequent this blog have. That is not to say they did benefit in either the short or long term, but they were in a position to take/recieve advantage. And many of those that have either taken the handouts or refused them still oppose them on a moral basis. The most basic point/reason being that two wrongs cannot make a right.
While it may not be time to completely scrap AA, welfare (in its many forms and guises), there is certainly room (and I would say a need) for reform.
Personally, I think more effort needs to be spent reforming the schools, from the bottom up. Raise expectations, and work to meet them, for every group in every state, rather than lowering standards or diluting achievement.
And for the record, THEY (whichever THEY you mean this time) were never alone in their struggles, nor were ALL of us (again, whoever that means at the moment) united against them.
Stan: ALL of us have benefitted from the efforts of blacks to get the rights and benefits of the Declaration and the Constitution…
[yelling very loud] The Constitution is not about rights and benefits! It is a document to restrain the Washington government as a compact among the several states. Forgetting this has been the starting point of much mischief.
SCSIwuzzi Ha! I just got that! Now I wish I’d have called myself “OoeyGUI”
Mark & Fuzzy,
The Constitution is ALL about rights as is the Declaration. Read the Bill of Rights. Read “certain unalienable rights” in the Declaration. (I am not yelling and I am not laughing.) Isn’t benefitting from these “programs” while being opposed to them hypocritical on your part? Why don’t you tally up your benefits and return them to the government or give them to a charity?
Stan
Lee,
Regarding the “fact” that discriminators also pay a financial price for their discriminating, what does that mean…that discriminators are morons and intellectual midgets, incapable of making value judgments in their own favor? What does that say about the slaveowners or the schools and universities and employers that had to be dragged kicking and screaming before allowing even one black student to enroll or one black to work? Were they so educationally challenged in the knowledge of capitalism that they continued to hit themselves over the head for over 300 years to their own financial loss? Is that the choice? Either they were among the dumbest people God ever made or they were discriminators? You make the call.
Stan in San Diego
Stan in SD: Why don’t you tally up the your benefits and return them to the government or give them to a charity?
Oh, yeah!? Maybe I WILL!
Just give me a minute…
[scratching lotto tickets] Nope. [scratch scratch] Nope…
I’m with LaShawn. I am a purist. I have been on the other end of affirmative action, and I’m not a whiner. I just got another job, busted my tail, and got to where I’m at because of hard work and some opportunity. The guy who got the job, well he did a great job and was rewarded. Because he did a great job does not justify him getting it. I’m sure he would have found the right opportunity down the road anyways, he’s that talented. But he wasn’t the most qualified for the job.
I just don’t want special considerations or benefits conferred to any group. End of story. I find it morally reprehensible and cheapening to the individual who recieved them. Everybody who works hard deserves a break. And those who work hard do receive breaks…they just can’t predict when those breaks will take place. I think we are in a place where affirmative action has worn out its welcome. There will never be perfect/true equality of opportunity in this country…that is way too much of an ideal to be accomplished. I think we are on the road to where we need to be. Now more than ever people of all ethnicities are recieving the opportunities they deserve. And it continues to improve. People are more conscious about diversity than ever.
The cure for the rest of the problem is to attack it at its source…education. LaShawn has seen me rant about this on my own site (Educators are lazy???). If you continue to disagree, I suggest you read “Losing the Race,” by John McWhorter.
You guys are a lot more optimistic than I am. In my admittedly limited experience, it seems to me that unless someone within the institutional structure is actively looking to diversify the candidate pool, then it will look the same as it always has. And that’s not necessarily indicative of racism.
That’s the experience of a former fling who worked in the admissions department of a major university.
When she wanted to go to a new school, typically mostly minority, she had to justify the reason. Then if they had little response, she had to justify why they should try again. She created a list of schools that the university always went to for prospective students, the application rate, the rejection rate, and the acceptance rate of students who went to the high school they recruited.
When asked to justify why she should return to the school to recruit, she used the list and asked why they went to certain schools although they received poor responses.
DarkStar is always talking about his former girlfriends.
LaShawn,
First of all, they weren’t all “social engineers”. You are speaking in white, conservative code. Using that phrase dishonors men like Hubert Humphrey, who fought for the extension of civil rights and was one of the best men, in the real sense of the word, to serve this country in the last 60 years. During that same period, Reagan and Goldwater were speaking in “code” to the South. Human nature being what it is, and you are right when you keep emphasizing that aspect of truth, it did not take long after the death of Dr. King for all kinds of shysters, both white and black, to use the issue for their own political and financial gain, Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton and George Wallace being the most visible and notorious examples.
But conservatives almost worship the “status quo” so what would you folks have done? Do you want to go back to that era when job and educational discrimination were blatant everywhere in the country, but especially the south? I grew up in supposedly liberal Lincoln, Nebraska in the 50s and early 60s and I know white people. I know how they talked and how they felt. My family on my Dad’s side was racist to the core. My Uncle Fred worked in Gary, Ind as a meat cutter and saw the black exodus to the Chicago-Gary area after WWll after the mechanization of cotton production and the boom in industrial production in the north. Whites were scared that blacks would take their jobs. What he continually said about blacks will never be heard through my lips.The stories and lies told about Thunder Thornton, Willie Ross, etc., Nebraska’s first black football players, made me want to vomit. I was called “ni**er lover” many times before I ever hit 20. In the late 50s, a black family tried to move out of the designated black areas into Havelock on the northeast side. They were quickly burned out. My Dad told me about it watching to see my reaction. My mom and grandma, and some in our church, believed that blacks were basically getting what they deserved because God had cursed Noah’s son Ham and grandson Canaan with perpetual servant status. We were taught that Ham was possibly black and that his son Cush certainly was.
Do you conservatives, and I count myself as one, want to go back there? I did work in inner-city Phoenix and San Diego way back in the early 70s and 80s when white people wouldn’t even drive “down there..” My wife and two small blond boys lived there with me. The problems with black kids were astronomical and so sad and they were almost overwhelmingly caused by discrimination and the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, especially in Phoenix. My Bible says “help the weak” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” My family tried. We did our best. But white conservative donors wanted salvation decisions. No matter that the kids couldn’t read or didn’t have decent clothes or even ANY shoes.I was fired for expressing my concerns. We now work in Cambodia with the poorest of the poor. But my gratitude still goes out to PeanutHead and his mom, and Robert and his blind grandma and Lou Thaddeus, who endured life with a totally destroyed heroin-addicted mother and Albert and Renee and Pearl who fought there way to find a place in the sun in a family of 17. They taught me the value of a human life. They taught me to love the unlovely like Christ loved and still loves me…and you
.Where were the conservatives? I was raised an Ike, Nixon and Goldwater Republican and by 1965 had seen enough. I have been fiercely eclectic and independent since the death of Robert Kennedy. I lived in Dallas in 67-68 and worked in a drugstore that had 3 bathrooms. I lived there when MLK was shot and saw the reaction. I lived in Phoenix, Goldwater country so-called, and saw conditions far worse than anything I’ve encountered in Cambodia. I heard how the white “conservatives”, including fundamentalists and evangelicals talked about the blacks and Indians.
It is all fine to sit back and criticize and analyze…bla, bla, bla. And its fine to say that helping the weak is for the charities and the churches (Hell will freeze over before the churches do much beside offer tokens).
I heard Billy Graham, who I had cherished since I first heard his name as a 3-4 yr old, say over and over in the 60s that legislation and laws couldn’t change morality. That of course was the old southern mantra.”We are virulent rascists and bigots and your laws won’t change us!” He was wrong then and that thinking is still wrong. It was about extending rights and benefits to ALL of OUR people in keeping with our great foundational documents. Laws, when they are just, are ALL about morality. As Paul said, laws are made for the lawless and rebellious, the ungodly and sinners.You are exactly right when you say that racial preferences are immoral but what were they for 350 years before the Civil Rights Movement? Just tough cookies for the parties who suffered under them? And can we expect that such racial preferences over the centuries did not effect the people who were so treated?
Stan in San Diego
Stan,
I am proud to say I turned down the cookie, and worked 3 part time jobs (usually 35+ hours a week)while in college, and went on to a nice career and even own a modest little bungalow in the burbs (no fha or hud for this bear, TYVM) 
Hows about you, Stan?
You really need to read what people say before going off. I said I was eligible, not that I took any of the things I was eligible for.
As for charities, I do give. In time and dollars, I gave more than John F’n Kerry did last year
As for the Constitution, while that was someone elses point… the big C and the Bill of Rights discuss what the Government shall have the right to do and what it shall not. The Bill of Rights takes pains to spell out a nice top ten things they forgot to include off the bat, like government shall not establish religion, not infringe on political speach, not search or seize property without provocation, etc. It is all about what the government shall not do to us, the people.
I don’t have the energy this late to respond to all of your long post, but, is it your belief that 350 years of inequality can only be solved by more another kind of inequality? When does it end? Are you going to give back your stretch of San Diego to the Spanish? Will they return it to the Cupeno and the Cahuilla? Once that is done, will they have to give it back to the Yuman? Then hand off to the La Jollans?
Should the Angles and Saxons pay off the Brittons? Man o man, Italy must owe Africa, Europe and the mid east quite a bit… then those pesky vikings… I wonder if I can get some Ikea stock out of that deal… or some Legos, preferably Star Wars legos.
Which brings me back to San Diego… who will own Legoland when the land is re-destributed based on who was wronged by whom? And when will we right the wrongs that were made while righting the other wrongs? I hope whomever is in charge wrights it all down.
Chris,
I don’t know if you’re totally right about affirmative action wearing out its welcome, but I do think that the time is soon. We are approaching the time when the benefits of the Civil Rights movement and other programs will have achieved most of their aim. I personally think that it is time to really work hard to search out the “deserving poor” who are weak and need help from those who are still “gaming” the system, most of whom are unmarried white women with children. I know this from personal experience. I am helping a homeless Cambodian refugee family which was evicted from their home for non-payment of rent and violation of Sec. 8 limitations regarding number of occupants. I helped them resettle in 1985 and employed the woman and her husband in the late 80s, getting them off welfare. He took her cousin as a girlfriend and I warned him once and then gave him an option of quitting or getting fired. He quit. His wife, who went through the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia and had about a year of education and only the skills of a rice farmer, has not been the same since. She started drinking and gambling, most of the time using AFDC money. With only one child left she has very little income, $195 AFDC and $78 foodstamps, and now needs surgery on her eyes. I personally made the decision for the landlord not to give her another chance. I’m also encouraging the landlord to turn her in to Sec. 8 because she doesn’t deserve it. The landlord is black with a big heart that got in the way of her head. But God will bless her. Her boyfriend is conservative in the mode of some black conservatives who like to brag that they made it without any help so nobody else deserves help either. (Not you LaShawn!). The landlord left him last week because of his lack of compassion and flexibility . But I’m training the Cambodia lady and her 24 yr old daughter to make wise decisions. All their money has to be turned over to me. I give them a very small allowance. The daughter is now working and the mother has been able to get a little bit of work at a Chinese fast food place at about $2.50 per hour, paid under the table. They are living with another Cambodian family and we’re trying to find another place but they have next to no money for a deposit and have no one to give them a good reference, including me. I will “sit on them” for the next year or so and hope they get it right. I have put in about $50 so far and that will be about it although I had to buy school clothes for her 13 yr. girl. And that’s why I do it. There is a 13 yr old and a 4 yr old. I do it for them. And I do it because I love all of them and I am told to love others as Christ has loved me. He “looked beyond my faults and saw my need” and practices “tough love” with me, training me to be wise and obedient. I , as the chiefest of sinners, cannot ever forget that. I often want to get so angry at shirkers and profligates and the immoral and I’ve yelled at this lady and her daughter over and over. But they know that I love them and want the best for them and I know that God feels the same for me.
Stan in San Diego
HEADS-UP HEADS-UP
Sometimes comments get “stuck” in the holding area because a word in your post triggered the spam filter. I try to approve “stuck” comments as fast as I can, so if yours doesn’t appear right away, it will show up momentarily. Except for when I’m asleep, which I’m about to be in a few minutes. Good night!
Stan-
Keep on keepin on brutha!!!
DarkStar-
You’re right. It’s not indicative of racism, though many people out there automatically assume it is. Wow, something you and I can agree about. Knowledge gained from former girlfriends is sometimes priceless. :>
Wuzzy,
Its really hard to respond to you for the same reasons. Re: the Constitution and Declaration.
Declaration
“certain unalienable rights”
“that to secure these rights, governments are instituted…”
“it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…”
“it is their right, it is their responsibility…”
“a right inestimable to them…”
“his invasion on the rights of the people…”
Constitution
“the right of the people to assemble…”
“the right of the people to bear arms…”
“the right of the people to be secure in their persons…”
“the right to a speedy and public trial…”
“the right of trial by jury…”
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights…”
“The right of citizens…to vote…” (4 times)
Frankly, I have never heard your’s or Mark’s interpretations before. Both documents are rather straightforward. And I wonder why you’re taking everything so personally, using LOL over and over again, questioning my charitable giving, accusing me of wanting reparations going back centuries (I never mentioned it). I guess I wouldn’t want to give San Diego back to the “Indians”. Now LA, that’s a different story! Can anyone argue that LA metro is a better place than it was when the “Indians” “owned” it? You really are a good example of the “tough cookies” for losers attitude. Nice to know you know about our wonderful area. Feel free to visit anytime and leave as much money as you can before you leave.
Stan in San Diego
Stan,
— Regarding the “fact” that discriminators also pay a financial price for their discriminating, what does that mean? that discriminators are morons and intellectual midgets, incapable of making value judgments in their own favor? What does that say about the slaveowners or the schools and universities and employers that had to be dragged kicking and screaming before allowing even one black student to enroll or one black to work? —
schools and universities aren’t ‘for-profit’ enterprises.
as such, they can discriminate without penalty.
especially if the majority of their funding is through taxes.
slavery was profitable – or it would not have existed.
slavery is also different from discrimination in a free market…unless you consider the institution of slavery to have existed in a free market. do you?
—Were they so educationally challenged in the knowledge of capitalism that they continued to hit themselves over the head for over 300 years to their own financial loss? Is that the choice? Either they were among the dumbest people God ever made or they were discriminators? You make the call.—
obviously, this point of yours is answered adequately above.
feel free to ask any other questions.
- lee
Lee,
Not sure what you’re saying. You said that discriminators paid a financial price. How? Slavery DID operate in a free market because the slaves were a commodity to be bought and sold. Constitutionally, they were property. Arguments have been made by others that slavery was unprofitable to slave owners. That would mean that slaveowners were discriminators AND morons.
As for schools and universities having the right to discriminate because they are not-for -profit…then why are we so upset about affirmative action. Your statement would indicate that schools have the right to discriminate against whites or Asians in favor of blacks, Latinos, etc. I don’t understand.
Stan in San Diego
Stan my Man in San Diego:
The declaration described rights as given by GOD, not government. The constitution is (was?) a document setting definite and limited parameters for the newly created (by the states) Federal government. The first ten articles of which we call the “Bill of Rights”, which again are PROHIBITIONS on the government (can we even imagine today our government being prohibited from meddling in ANYTHING?).
Affirmative action and welfare (both for the poor AND for big corporations) might be well and good, but we must stop pretending that our form of government, involved as it is in so many things not provided for in those documents, is the same as that set forth by the Founding Fathers.
I’m sure your charities are noble, and your giving is reflective of a servant’s heart. But I believe that you are worthy of reproof in this matter of the proper role of government (particularly the Washington gov’t).
—Not sure what you’re saying.—
obviously so. i guess i’m not communicating my point clearly enough.
—You said that discriminators paid a financial price.—
in a free market. a free market that includes labor.
—How? Slavery DID operate in a free market because the slaves were a commodity to be bought and sold.—
i disagree.
simply b/c a commodity can be bought and sold does not prove that the market in which that commodity is bought and sold is ‘free.’
the slaves had no ability to bargain with their labor.
the market, as such, was not free.
—Constitutionally, they were property. Arguments have been made by others that slavery was unprofitable to slave owners. That would mean that slaveowners were discriminators AND morons.—
the first point is beside the point.
the second point brings up studies that have been largely discredited by economists.
—As for schools and universities having the right to discriminate because they are not-for -profit…then why are we so upset about affirmative action.—
i never said schools and universities have the right to discriminate. i said they wouldn’t suffer an economic penalty from discrimination. you are putting words into my mouth.
discrimination of any sort is not ‘right.’ but that doesn’t mean universities or colleges will suffer economic penalties for such discrimination if their budgets are largely buttressed by tax dollars.
—Your statement would indicate that schools have the right to discriminate against whites or Asians in favor of blacks, Latinos, etc. I don’t understand.—
no.
you have misread my statement.
i merely stated that in the case of universities and colleges, since most public institutions of higher learning are largely funded by federal and state tax dollars as well as tuition, fees, etc. any economic penalty that would come about due to discrimination is severely muted. no one has a ‘right’ to discriminate. some can merely get away with it without a large economic penalty while others cannot.
- lee
Lee & Mark,
I stand by my statements. Reread what you wrote to me. I didn’t misread you. Your thinking is somewhat illogical and historically innacurate. Thanks for the dialogue.
Stan in San Diego
—-I stand by my statements. Reread what you wrote to me. I didn’t misread you. Your thinking is somewhat illogical and historically innacurate. Thanks for the dialogue.—-
*shrugs*
yeah, what the hell do i know. i just have a master’s degree in economics. guess i better notify my alma maters and ask for a refund.
hate to break it to you friend, but you have no clue what you’re talking about.
later.
The most egregious example of racial preferences historically and still extant today is those extended to the children of white elites, both Democrats and Republicans. Both Pres. Bushes are examples of this as are enormous amounts of others in both parties. Why do we ignore this and focus almost entirely on blacks?
Lee, maybe an additional degree in sociology and/or history might help. I guess I don’t have as much faith in Mr. Sowell or Mr. Friedman as you do. You never addressed my argument regarding the slaveowners. Were they virulent racists who built their empires on stolen land and stolen labor or were they intellectual morons who didn’t understand that slavery was actually costing them (an argument still being made by the way) and that freeing the slaves to sell their own labor was to the slaveowners financial profit?
Stan in San Diego
Mark,
I gratefully receive your reproof but you are still wrong in your interpretation of the Constitution. It both restricted the rights of the government and enlarged and protected the rights of the individual. Are you a libertarian?
Stan in San Diego
Lashawn,
When Wuzzy called me out on my charitable giving in comparison to his, he used the “F” word.
Stan in San Diego
Comments on this entry are closed.