Race, race, race, race, race, race! There’s no escape!!!
A few days ago, someone sent me a tip about a scholarship contest at the University of Rhode Island (URI) for “White, Heterosexual, American Males,” held last Friday on campus.
Ryan Bilodeau, Chairman of the URI College Republicans told me he wanted to raise awareness of the “racist policy” of awarding scholarships based on race. He said he was approached by white people interested in applying for the scholarship and black people who wanted to know the point of the contest.
Wasn’t it obvious? To some, apparently not.
The URI scholarship contest didn’t make the news, though. The one we all heard about happened at Boston University. According to the Boston Globe, College Republicans tried to “spark a debate” about the odiousness of race preferences by offering a “whites only” scholarship. What ended up happening, however, is that the group was vilified. Nobody, including patronizing white liberals, wants to “debate” a darn thing. Race preferences are indefensible. John Rosenberg at Discriminations has an excellent post about the uproar in Boston.
I’ve blogged about this topic many times and will continue doing so as long as preferences exist. People who oppose preferences understand why they’re so demeaning. So-called affirmative action was designed to include in a pool of applicants the kind of people traditionally excluded from the pool, nothing more, nothing less. These days, affirmative action is a euphemism for dropped standards.
Black students with lower grades and test scores are admitted in place of non-black students with higher grades and test scores. Under affirmative action policies for hiring, black people with lesser qualifications and credentials and/or lower quality credentials are hired in place of non-blacks with better qualifications, more credentials, and higher quality credentials.
I wish a black person somewhere would be honest and tell the truth about why they support race preferences despite the illegality and immorality of such policies. Until someone can articulate why race-based, government-sanctioned considerations are morally wrong, they’ll continue to exist. Here’s a challenge for black readers who support preferential treatment based on race, should they wish to accept it:
If “whites only” scholarships, policies, and programs are obviously wrong, why are “blacks only” scholarships, policies, and programs not wrong? What’s difference between the races justifies lowering standards for one and discriminating against the other?
Every now and then, the Department of Justice does its job and enforces the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Southern Illinois University got rid of three of its race-based fellowships after the feds came calling. A few other schools followed suit, preemtively.
I explained why I believe race preferences are immoral, but as I said the other day, I don’t think like most black people, it seems. One fine day, when this generation of blacks realizes how much hispanics are benefiting from those same skin color-based policies, getting rid of preferences will be the latest civil rights fad. Until then, in the eyes of the government, black people are made of lower quality stuff and must be given what normal people earn.
We’ve indeed overcome, I suppose. 
Very well put.
I’ve always argued that the problem is not merely with race/gender preferences, but with the host of “other†preferences, such as donor preferences, alumni/legacy preferences, geographical preferences, etc., that the well-heeled and well-connected benefit from, as well.
ALL such preferences violate some very basic principles, like equality before the law and equal access/opportunity, and in doing so undermine some of the things that have made this nation so great and prosperous.
The problem for traditionally vulnerable groups, like working people and minorities, supporting such policies, is that while such violations of those basic principles is often couched in short-term gain, they replace principles with arbitrary standards and that is always to the long term detriment of those less well-heeled and less well-connected.
Comment by JMK — 11.27.06 @ 11:19 am
Interesting Reading November 27, 2006
‘If “whites only” scholarships, policies, and programs are obviously wrong, why are “blacks only” scholarships, policies, and programs not wrong?’ This is the question asked on La Shawn Barber’s Corner. To be honest, I would like to hear the ans…
Trackback by Fire and Hammer — 11.27.06 @ 11:45 am
I have come to the conclusion that anti-affirmative action folks are two faced in their beliefs becuase there is such a hue and cry about race and no real talk about legacy admits and the like. Therefore, there can be no real dialogue about this subject because neither side wants to admit there are problems with both arguments.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 11.27.06 @ 2:18 pm
Actually Tiffany, many people, probably MOST, oppose any such preferences, but donor, legacy and geographic preferences continue because they benefit primarily wealthy and well-connected people.
There are, of course, blacks who’ve benfitted from alumni and geographic preferences as well, as those are policies that are not linked to genetics the way that race & gender based preferences are.
ALL such preferences undermine the principles of equality before the law and equal access to opportunity and that is almost always going to ultimately be to the detriment of the most vulnerable groups.
Comment by JMK — 11.27.06 @ 3:23 pm
La Shawn,
I think we both are having the same problem. First, I am caucasian non-hispanic (That’s what they make me mark on forms).
The problem I have is that I wasn’t around to experience affirmative action. I was born in the 70’s and started working in the 90’s. I believed that the best person should get the job. I wasn’t around or having to experience the “good old boy network” or anything like that (In some ways, I’m the only class that can be discrimiated against now - white, straight, male, not over weight). That women were inferior or people of different skin color weren’t ( I know alot of women smarter than me).
Since I didn’t experience that, it’s harder for me to exact it as status quo in some ways.
Alot of the older generation holds onto the old ways and have problems accepting that things have changed. It will just take time and another generation or two (Of course, I don’t view Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton helping more part of the problem).
Personally, I’ve always found the United Negro college fund..well racist. I’m all for donating and helping the poor but if there was a United White college fund - it would be horrible.
Just help people. Don’t worry about skin color.
Comment by Nicholas — 11.27.06 @ 5:14 pm
Because of racial preference issues at the University of Michigan, voters in Michigan overwhelmingly passed Proposal 2 in November. This banned acceptance based on race in college admission and government contracts. It is scheduled to be implemented in early December. But the UM has vowed to fight the voters in the courts.
Comment by Spunky — 11.27.06 @ 5:15 pm
While I respect Ms. Barber’s opinions I strongly disagree with her assessment that “black only” scholarships, policies, and programing are wrong.
If we lived in a perfect world then I would whole heartedly agree with many of Ms. Barber’s statements but unfortunately we don’t, and for this cause, above all others, is why I disagree with her viewpoints. The purpose of affirmative action began as a corrective measure for “GOVERNMENTAL AND SOCIAL” injustices against demographical groups, namely African Americans, that have been said to be subject to discrimination in areas such as employment and education, but a more accurate term would be “EMPOWERMENT”
Ms. Barber stated that the “so-called affirmative action was designed to included in a pool of applicants the kind of people traditionally excluded from the pool, nothing more, nothing less. These days, affirmative action is a euphemism for dropped standards” Nothing could be further from the truth. Affirmative action in its rawest form is a policy and/or program whose stated GOAL is to REDRESS PAST or present discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment. Therefore Ms. Barber’s statement in her referenced article “The Immorality of Race Preferences” that “if an individual is discriminated against because of his race, he should be compensated, not his entire racial group is flawed simply because of the fact that the LAWS of the PAST DISCRIMINATED against an entire race the BLACK RACE. Laws were written, adopted, and enacted in THIS COUNTRY to deliberately hold back and oppress an entire race of people for centuries. Those laws in turn gave another group of people an unfair advantage to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With that being the case then keeping with Ms. Barber’s assessment of the matter, then yes there is such a thing as Group Rights and that group has the right to seek redress from injury from that particular institution. In fact it has already happen, the Native American and Japanese American have both received redress as a group of people.
My question to Ms. Barber would be this who is intelligent enough to know the physiological effect on a group of people who has suffered some of the worst oppressions known to man. At what generation does the residual effects of being stripped from your homeland, chained, whipped, separated from your family, deprived of your heritage, beaten, raped, murdered, down graded, kept from being educated, worked without just compensation, under nourish, unable to vote, unable to participate in the governing body and demeaned for hundreds of years, wear off. Are any of us smart enough to even know what the true and lasting effects of such abuse are, much less determine how long they negative effects will be past down from generation to generation?
Before any of you start to think that I believe we as Black people should use the events that have happen to the black race in the past as a means to obtain handouts don’t, I will be the first to stand up and say of course not what’s done is done. However I will go to my grave defending affirmative action because those who have been oppress and are not as “empowered” as the ones who oppressed them will never be on the same playing field with the oppressor if aid is not give to the one who is oppressed. Make no mistake about it Ms. Barber would not be able to do what she is doing today if it were not for affirmative action. I know she will dispute this claim strongly but we will probably always disagree on that topic. Affirmative action has never been nor will it ever be intended to dropped any standards it is meant to give those individuals who have been unduly oppressed a fighting chance to better themselves and to prove that they can compete on the same playing field if given the chance. Again if we lived in a perfect world there would be no need for affirmative action but unfortunately we live in a society that is governed by the golden rule, he who has the gold makes all the rules.
Make no mistake about it not everybody is willing to give a black person the chance at education or employment even if he is the best candidate for the job. Unfortunately people, institutions and government still discriminate against groups of people, (depending on who is in charge at the time). Just recently we’ve all witness the ugly side of racism when Michael Richards who was not drunk, if I can use slang here, went completely off and said some very racially explosive statements. One statement in particular sticks out in my head where he made the claim that 50 years ago the two black audience members would have been upside down with a pitch fork… Can you imagine this man as the head of a fortune 500 company? Could you allow yourself to believe that there are men who are running fortune 500 companies that might feel the same way as Mr. Richards in private but would never say such things in public? Of course you can it has already happen several times, well maybe not as explicit as what Mr. Richards said. Also please keep in mind that Ms. Barber stands to gain financially by being very controversial with a topic such as this so I honestly question her true motive when she makes some of the comments that she does.
For those of you that are still reading I hope you continue to read on because my intent is not to justify or encourage the dropping of standards in anyway but I do hope to get you to understand and hopefully Ms. Barber to understand that the standards that she speaks of are not always the same for every group of people and chances are they never will be because we are all human and we do not live in a perfect world, that is why we need affirmative action. I will give a personal example.
I have an BS Degree in Civil Engineering and a Master of Business Administration. I work as an engineer, I own my own company that gross approximately $200k a year and I also write, direct and produce plays. In fact I was bless to be able to write my first movie script and it was filmed locally in the town I live in. My chance of competing with the powers in Hollywood are slim to none but that won’t stop me from trying. I believe my script and story line is just as good as those that come out of the major production companies but how do I compete it is almost impossible because I’m not on the same playing field as they are. They have way more money than I therefore there product will obviously be superior to mind in most areas but my script is just as good and entertaining I know it. However that doesn’t change my situation simply because of their economic position in reference to mind but again it doesn’t mean that I can eventually get there but you better believe I will need help to get there that is just simple mathematics.
Another personal example, to my knowledge I was the first engineer to graduate in my family. While in college school I struggle to maintain a C average but was an A student in high school. In almost every class I had in college (that pertained to engineering course work) I was the only black in the class. While I was struggling to study for test my counterparts had old test that had been handed down for generations. Do you think my white counterparts offer to share those test with me? Consequently my counter parts obtained far greater test scores then I did and their GPA’s appeared far greater than mind. Why because they know exactly what to study for on the test and I didn’t. Now if all corporations listen to Ms Barber, then company that hired me would be consider to have dropped their standards because my grades weren’t as strong as some of my white counterparts but would that really be a true assessment of the disparity in grades, of course not. Please don’t think that I’m advocating cheating by any means I simply state that we do not live in a perfect world and the playing field is not always level as Ms. Barber would have you to believe. Had my counter parts not had access to previous test I wounder what their true scores would have been, perhaps they would have have more closely mirrored my own thus reflecting a true account of my ability verses theirs.
I’m very good at my job and I’ve proved my ability to learn and master any and every job that has been given to me thus far and yes I was apart of a affirmative action program. But make no mistake about it nobody gave me anything I earned it and will continue to do so.
In conclusion I must add to the fact that I was fortunate enough to have two parents in the home how raised me and refused to let me do anything less then my best. My parent challenge me to be the best at whatever I put forth my hands to do but again I was blessed to have two good parents not everyone in our society especially among the black community has been bless to have the same support system that I had so there has to be programs out there to help those who need a helping hand not as a means to lower any standards but as a means to have a true reflection of the society as a whole. Many of my college student counterparts also had father’s uncles and cousins who were engineers that they could go to to call upon for assistance I didn’t have that so I have to find other resources, who had the advantage here. A race a people who has been able to pass down wealth, knowledge and power for centuries or a first generation student struggling to make it through? The danger of listening to Ms. Barber’s opinions is that it fosters a spirit of supremacy among those of else who were fortunate enough to escape the trappings of a past that in my opinion continues to hunts this nation to this very day. I might add that I responded to this article at the urging of a white friend who works with me. I do consider him to be a friend and I greatly appreciate his open and honest communication that he shares with me and I with him I think that is why we get along so well, he is real with his feeling.
I encourage each of you to stop looking at affirmative action as a program that drops standards but rather as a program that enhances our society in a way no other program can. Think of it this way, where would the world of sports be if it wasn’t for affirmative action? Had black people never been given the chance to prove what they can do on the playing field no sport would be as exciting as it is today, there would be no Tiger Woods. I know some people may get mad at me for using sports as an example but I did so on purpose because I thought I would end on a lighter note because sports is one thing that seems to pull people together rather than push them apart. Where else do you see all races of people in a common place routing for the common good of something and desiring the similar outcome, victory. Each fan rather they be black or white is encouraging of the well doing of each player regardless of that players color why because the desired outcome is share by all, they all want to win. Affirmative action can do that for us as a nation of people, if “ADMINISTER” right affirmative action can help us to win as a nation of all different types of people. Ms. Barbers assessment of affirmative action makes us look at this great country of ours as a melting pot and I strongly disagree with that assessment. America should not be considered or looked at as a melting pot because within a melting pot everything put in most lose its own identity and they final product is bland and always the same, a better analogy would be to look at our great nation as a pot of stew. In a good pot of stew there are all different types of items put into the pot to make up the stew but the potatoes don’t have to lose there identity to be apart of the stew, in fact it is because of their difference they add flavor to the stew ultimately make the stew taste better the same can be said for the corn, carrots and beans. Each items brings something unique to the stew and by sharing what it has creates a desired taste that is craved by countless of people every. It we look at affirmative action in the right way America can continue to be that savory stew that grave by the whole entire world.
Thanks for allowing me to share my views, may God Bless each and every one of you, is my earnest prayer!
Comment by TJ — 11.27.06 @ 7:48 pm
The best solution would be to end taking money from taxpayers by force to help pay to put someone else’s kid thru college. Period. No state schools. If you want to give money to help someone else thru school, go ahead. But don’t make me help you do it. I’ll give to whom I want to give, thanks very much.
Then JMK can bleat all he likes about the ‘well-heeled’ blah blah blah. And it’s so unfair that Bill Gates gets to live in a nice house and have 8 cars, too. The rich get to provide nice things for their kids, OK? That’s one of the reasons why people try to get rich. In the process, they usually help other people get rich, too. That’s called entrepeneurship. A free market. It’s what’s given us the greatest economy in the world, altho’ we’re throwing sand in the gears at an alarming rate. Government schools, both childhood and college level, are just so much more sand in the gears. There should be no racial quotas at gov’t colleges not because quotas are bad, but because there should be no gov’t colleges! Except West Point, etc, of course, since the military is one of the few legitimate functions of gov’t.
Comment by Doc — 11.27.06 @ 8:16 pm
I have no problem with the white only scholarships. There are scholarships for which whites can only meet the requirements, like based on ancestry.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.27.06 @ 8:48 pm
I have never met anyone who supports “legacy’ admittance for the unqualified, though they may exist. I wonder how much that happens. Further, there is a fundamental difference between someone supported with my tax dollars and someone who is admitted by virtue of being the child of a donor who enhances the ability of the school to function fiscally.
And, if one is looking for those who have inconsistent views and deeming them two faced, I am often surprised by those who bring up the unfairness of legacy admittances and use that to support AA.
Comment by jan — 11.27.06 @ 10:22 pm
It always amazes me that only one form of Affirmative Action seems to draw any fire. Although all sorts of groups benefit, it’s only when blacks are involved that the hue and cry arises. We have commentators commenting about tax dollars - as if blacks don’t also pay taxes. And as much as doctors would prefer to all open their practices in Beverly Hills, it might be nice to have a few of them down in South Central.
The truth is, I’d rather see blacks prepared for a world in which they’ll have to work twice as hard to be considered half as good (i.e., no AA). But for whites to pretend that they’ve had, and don’t have now, advantages gets old really quick. Th constant pretense that the “Good ole boys” network ceased to exist with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill is pure BS.
Mike Giles
Comment by Michael D Giles — 11.28.06 @ 6:09 am
some food for thought: the most succesful (read: wealthiest) graduates of America’s most competitive universities are not the 4.0, 1600 kids who graduate phi beta kappa and spend their whole college careers in the library. Most often, the students who garner the most success–and subsequently give the most back to their alma matas in the form of donations or prestige– are students who often spend their collegiate lives in the bottom quarter of their class gradewise.
This would seem to follow logically. The social movers, the people who spend the majority of their time smoozing with their peers, throwing parties, running organizations, making sure everyone knows them, are going to be more valuable assets to big companies/law firms/businesses than the really smart, socially inept person who will probably spend the rest of their life as an analyst.
The college admissions process is inherently subjective, not objective.
Comment by rob — 11.28.06 @ 8:59 am
here’s an article that talks more about subjective college admissions and the history of (white ) affirmative action.
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/051010crat_atlarge
Comment by rob — 11.28.06 @ 9:02 am
Regarding comment #7; we should never forget that Bill Gates dropped out of college!
Comment by Tom Bosee — 11.28.06 @ 9:07 am
Should whites get race based scholarships?
In response to a Hispanic schorlarship at BU with the same criteria, the president of the CRs said, “There are plenty of poor, white, academically gifted students who need that money just as much.”
I agree. And if there’s nothing wrong with offe…
Trackback by Perspectives in Motion — 11.28.06 @ 9:10 am
#10 Mike Giles observes: “Th constant pretense that the “Good ole boys†network ceased to exist with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill is pure BS.”
Of course, Mike is correct. However, 42 years and two generations of Affirmative Action should have been enough time for those benefiting from Affirmative Action to have succeeded in not only establishing themselves as movers and shakers, but to have created their very own “good ole boys” network.
In the 42 years following emancipation, our country had black leaders who put their ugly past behind them and carved out a lot of new paths toward success.
The famous black achievers in the 42 years between 1864-1906 and the motley crew of black welfare pimps of the 1964-2006 period of 42 years stand in stark contrast.
It is hard to imagine what impact Affirmative Action would have had on the first 42 years of black emancipation. But like all people of true grit, the black leaders of that period slogged on even though their times were significantly less favorable for their advancement.
Every major business and government agency is looking for competent “others” so they can present a “diverse” face in this modern world constipated by political correctness.
Who wants to be seen as the guy who got the job because of his “diversity” qualification and because they lowered the standards to get him in? That is not a formula for high self esteem, nor is it a confidence builder.
Comment by Heliotrope — 11.28.06 @ 9:36 am
Of course, Mike is correct. However, 42 years and two generations of Affirmative Action should have been enough time for those benefiting from Affirmative Action to have succeeded in not only establishing themselves as movers and shakers, but to have created their very own “good ole boys†network.
I agree with this section from Heliotrope.
To answer the initial question, LaShawn, I think that the outcry against white scholarships comes because for most of the history of education, whites were the only group with ready access to education. (Of course, this is simplistic; poor whites were no better off when it came to education than blacks were.) Black scholarships were enacted to make up for that fact. White scholarships, therefore, are seen as rolling things back to pre-Civil Rights days, when whites had additional access to education that other groups did not have. The idea, however wrong, is that whites have access to education, and other groups need scholarships to equal the access that whites have; thus, scholarships for whites provide a benefit on top of the one that whites allegedly have already.
But I’m with Heliotrope, I think that affirmative action has had enough time to produce a generation of educated blacks, a generation of blacks who can network and lead and do all the other things people do with their education.
I have to disagree with Doc; I think that public higher education is one of the greatest benefits a society can give itself. Of course, that only applies if the education is good, and lower standards will ensure that it is not.
Comment by Alexandra — 11.28.06 @ 10:11 am
“…Then JMK can bleat all he likes about the ‘well-heeled’ blah blah blah. And it’s so unfair that Bill Gates gets to live in a nice house and have 8 cars, too. The rich get to provide nice things for their kids, OK?” (Doc)
Is that a lame attempt to rationalize donor, alumni, legacy and geographic preferences that have tradionally benefitted ONLY well-off, well-connected whites?
If it is, you conveniently left out any actual “justification” doc!
Fact is, ALL those preferences are as corrosive as are race/gender-based preferences, and as such they should be done away with as well.
The well-off SHOULD indeed be able to buy their progeny “nice things”…give them their businesses, homes, etc., but NOT preferences in University admissions.
It could easily be argued that the world would be a better place if our elite Universities admitted people based purely on grades and standardized test scores (those who could most benefit from that education) even though we don’t know precisely what we’ve missed out on because of the lack of that.
It’s virtually impossible to argue that preferential admissions even for such successful folks as Al Gore & G W Bush (legacy/alumni), Ted Kennedy (donor), and Bill Clinton (geographic) have done much to advance the country.
For my money, we could’ve used four more good engineers or researchers and sent the above four off to Syracuse or Louisville with pretty much the same result for the folks above.
Comment by JMK — 11.28.06 @ 11:39 am
And I ask a question to both Helitotrope and Alexandria…If what you say is true, then why is there still a education and wealth gap between whites and blacks? Why is the gap only minimum when it comes to high school diplomas? I laugh at you all’s notion that 42 years and two generations is enough to establish a “Good Ole Boy Network” when so much was done to dismantle that.
And also, why are people so concern about how “others” got their job when I never hear the same concerns when a member of their own race gets a job because of who their parents are or relatives or friends in high places? If we are going to moan and groan about preferential job treatment based on race, we should also moan and groan at preferential job treatment based on social status, wealth, and privilege. I am all for elminating all preferences not just the ones that some deem anti-white. The sad thing about all of this is that we get so caught up in the race fight that we lose sight of other issues that keep the rich in power, the middle class squeezed and the poor left behind.
Comment by Roye Barber — 11.28.06 @ 11:59 am
>>If what you say is true, then why is there still a education and wealth gap between whites and blacks?>>
Been reading LaShawn for long?
>>The sad thing about all of this is that we get so caught up in the race fight that we lose sight of other issues that keep the rich in power, the middle class squeezed and the poor left behind.>>
It’s called _money_. Those what has gets, and those what hasn’t, don’t. Somebody’s _always_ going to be in power…how do you decide who that’s going to be? By lottery? Wasn’t there a Rudyard Kipling story about that? “The poor you will always have with you” is a given. The only way _not_ to have a group of poor in society is to have everyone have exactly equal amounts of assets. Now, how will you achieve that goal? We don’t start out life with the same assets - some people have an intelligence that benefits in our technological society. Some blacks (from another topic)were born with greater physical assets that benefitted them in _that_ society (and these days, seems to do pretty well in _our_ entertainment oriented society). There _is_ no equality, never will be. Do you have a problem with that?
Comment by suek — 11.28.06 @ 12:22 pm
#18 Roye Barber: I suggest you take a hard look at how far the emancipated black moved HIMSELF between in the first 42 years. He was beaten back by Jim Crow laws, institutionalized segregation and the unfulfilled promise of 40 acres and a mule.
The black family was intact. Great efforts were expended to get an education. There was an extremely wealthy and prestigious upper crust of black society in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York and elsewhere.
If it could be done then, why is it so hard now? Didn’t Brown v., the various Civil Rights Acts, Affirmative Action, etc. give blacks enough incentive? And look at the incredible welfare structure that has underpinned the whole last half century. Food, housing, earned income payments, medical care, child care assistance, job training and countless private and public outreach programs. What makes this period stand in such sharp contrast from the period after the Civil War when the blacks fought for advancement?
Comment by Heliotrope — 11.28.06 @ 12:57 pm
Suek, You are right, it is money and you did get most of what I said. I could careless what color is on top, all I care about is the establishment that continues to screw over the average american citizen regardless of color. The elites, the people who run this country, the people who use privilidge and power to advance themselves and their kids, dont care if you are black or white. All they care about is your social status and money. Some of us get it, but some of us don’t. Some of us continue to let race consume our minds, and continue to look at things with race colored glasses, while ignoring class. Prefential treatment based on class, in my opinion, is plaguing this country more than race based preferential treatment.
Helitrope, We are talking about totally different eras that had totally different social structues and prior historical influences. To basically ignore any history between the periods, is a diservice to the debate and it misses key elements. I suggest that you read up on the history between those time periods and then come back to me. It seems to me like we are debating apples to oranges.
Comment by Roye Barber — 11.28.06 @ 1:48 pm
>>…all I care about is the establishment that continues to screw over the average american citizen regardless of color.>>
Could you be a bit more specific? Is there somewhere in the world that you find treats its average citizens - regardless of color - better? How(meaning in what ways) do you think the establishment screws over the average citizen?
>>All they care about is your social status and money. >>
Who is “they”? That actually sounds pretty unracist to me. What standards would you suggest they apply?
Comment by suek — 11.28.06 @ 1:56 pm
#22 Roye Barber: I have researched, published and taught this history for nearly 40 years. I continue to research and update my findings. That is to say, I am quite familiar with the period between 1906 and 1964 and I really do not grasp your apples and oranges point. However, I always stand ready to be educated.
There has been an outrageous internal collapse within the black family structure that roughly coincides with the massive increase with government welfare programs that began in the early 1960’s.
I serve on a multitude of boards in my community that deal with providing services to the needy. These include transportation to and from medical services. Transportation to jobs. Jobs workshops. Meals on wheels. Home repairs or even building homes and additions. Free medicine. Tax preparation to obtain earned income payments. Public housing/Section 8 advocacy and representation. Child care services. Medicaid and public health advocacy. Free legal aid. Drug rehabilitation. Offender aid and restoration. General community resources networking. One group sets up “homework centers” in homes and provides tutors.
And we still have plenty of people who would rather let their eight year olds run around at midnight while they are busy entertaining their own desires.
I am not fed up or turned sour, but I sure am perplexed by those who won’t take a little bit of effort to help themselves and blame it all on things that they never, ever experienced themselves. I think that is a cheap and demeaning slap at those who did have a legitimate gripe.
I will be interested in your edifying reply.
Comment by Heliotrope — 11.28.06 @ 6:53 pm
Helio;
Even your questions edify…
Yesterday, I read that only 2% of those eligible for free taxpayer funded tutoring actually bother to attend and the city of Austin is lacerating itself over its neglect of the poor and its responsibility for the racial learning gap. Meanwhile, notices have been sent home to all parents, teachers have personally contacted them, students have been notified over and over, and there has been advertising.
In addition, the attendance rate of those who have sought tutoring is 40% at best and there are over twenty programs they they can attend.
Ergo, the teachers are going to start going to each home and “beg” the parents to take an interest in the education of their children.
In addition, taxpayers will now be soaked for additional millions as the ad campaign is stepped up to make tutoring “look like fun.” Maybe they should hold tutoring at a mall and give away gift cards to make sure that students will take advantage of what is offered on a silver platter.
I am a bit perplexed, as well.
Comment by jan — 11.28.06 @ 9:48 pm
#24. If you are familiar with it, then you know there is no comparison. You know it is futile to compare 42 years from the end of slavery to 1906 to 42 years from 1964 to 2006, and I dont see the point in it. I dont see how either periods correlate with each other and I dont see how one can make a conscious comparison while ignoring what went on between 1906 and 1964. Futhermore, you mean to tell me that this collapse that you speak of was solely done by Black America, America as a whole had absolutely nothing to do with it and welfare programs are only to blame? Giving the racial history of this country especially during the modern era, I would be hard pressed to put the blame squarely on welfare programs without analyzing other aspects of society that led to the decline. In my opinion, its too complex of an issue. I would think that you would know this considering you have taught, researched, and studied this for 40 years. But then again, historians disagree all the time and come to different conclusions, while using the same information.
Comment by Roye Barber — 11.29.06 @ 11:05 am
The Order Sons of Italy In America (OSIA) gives scholarships to Italian Americans. The Polish American Club of North Jersey gives scholarships to Polish Americans. There are scholarships for practically every European ethnicity in the U.S.
Comment by Shade — 11.29.06 @ 12:01 pm
I think I would really perfer if some of us would be really honest with oursleves when it comes to this topic and say what they really feel in thier hearts. I can honestly say that I believe in affirmative action and think that it needs tweaking to address class issues.
Some of these commenters need to keep it real and admit that really they think it’s OK that certain segments or groups in society can get scholarships, just not black or Latino folks.
I think that folks would feel better if that was off of their chests.
I’d definitely respect a person who said that.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 11.29.06 @ 1:15 pm
>>I can honestly say that I believe in affirmative action and think that it needs tweaking to address class issues.>>
If by affirmative action you mean going out of your way to find those who are of minority races, then I’d say it was ok. If you mean establishing percentages, then it’s not. I agree with you that class is a factor - bootstrapping is tough when you’re starting from way behind the starting line. But class is a factor that affects people of all races - not just blacks and latinos.
>>Some of these commenters need to keep it real and admit that really they think it’s OK that certain segments or groups in society can get scholarships, just not black or Latino folks.>>
I don’t think people really object to scholarships going to certain groups of people, but if it’s specifically to “blacks” or “latinos”, then it’s certainly hypocritical to object to having scholarships for “whites” or “asians”. It’s the problem of qualifying for a scholarship solely on the basis of skin color that gives people a problem. If a young person comes from a well situated middle class family, it’s offensive that s/he should get a scholarship solely because s/he is black or white. If you give a scholarship to a young person who has come from poverty, then I’m all for the scholarship - no matter what color the person is.
Comment by suek — 11.29.06 @ 9:09 pm
#26: You have certainly loaded a lot into what I neither wrote nor implied.
I will be interested to learn the identity of the Booker T. Washington of the last 50 years. No, not interested: fascinated and astounded.
All historical analysis is steeped in the process of comparing and contrasting. Without honing that skill, history has nothing to teach. Somehow that concept has escaped your thinking process.
Comment by Heliotrope — 11.29.06 @ 9:26 pm
To #29.
There are numerous scholarships specifically for Asian Americans:
http://www.scholarships-ar-us.org/scholarships/asian.htm
Comment by Shade — 11.30.06 @ 8:58 am
I only imply what you have written. I base everything I have said on what you said in #16 and what you said in #21.
Comment by Roye Barber — 11.30.06 @ 2:27 pm
#32 Roye Barber: It would appear that you are questioning my statement that: There has been an outrageous internal collapse within the black family structure that roughly coincides with the massive increase with government welfare programs that began in the early 1960’s.
You note: I would be hard pressed to put the blame squarely on welfare programs without analyzing other aspects of society that led to the decline.
You would agree that my use of the words “roughly coincides” does not equally translate to the use of your words “put the blame squarely”…….
Obviously, the first 42 years after emancipation did not segue into the period beginning 42 years ago without any influence from the intervening period. That would be patently foolish.
My point is that the emancipated black was turned loose in an often hostile society and made to fend for himself with scant help from the government or existing institutions. I compared that and contrasted it with the black emancipated from de facto and de jure segregation/discrimination coupled with the power of the federal government, the Civil Rights Acts, a multitude of welfare programs, Affirmative Action and a general public will to promote black success.
There is no question that the “middle period” was troubled by a resurgence of the KKK in the ’20’s, a militant Southern apartheid at the hands of Southern Democrats, unions that shut blacks out, and a general loss of small farms and small town economies during the depression.
However, during this same period, blacks created colleges, continued to acquire medical degrees, create small businesses to serve their communities and staff a segregated system of education, hospitals, transportation, etc. Black literature flourished and the music could not be stopped. Names like Scott Joplin, Fats Waller, Bessy Smith, Louie Armstrong, Count Basie, Lena Horne, Ella Fitzgerald, Paul Robeson, Marian Anderson, Duke Ellington, Earl Peterson, Lionel Hampton and on and on were super stars that crossed the color line.
There was a mass migration of blacks from the South to the manufacturing North in this era. The North had little experience at segregation and not much of a taste for it. While the unions tried to keep blacks out or in the lower ranks, the Republicans answered in turn by enacting “open shop” and “right to work” laws in order to bypass the union requirements on who could be hired and who couldn’t. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and other states all passed open work laws that benefited the growing black work force. It was not until the late 1950’s that the AFL-CIO saw the value of openly including blacks in their membership. (It was the Teamsters Union who held out the longest.)
A great deal of heavy lifting was in place for the re-emancipated black to succeed. Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the Eisenhower first Civil Rights Act, the Eisenhower directed integration of the Little Rock schools through the power of the National Guard, the Johnson Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voter’s Right Act, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action…….etc, etc, etc.
Martin Luther King was assassinated and replaced by……………. Malcom X, Rap Brown, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson? (It would seem to be a group of mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money snake oil salesmen.)
It is high time that the poverty pimps to retire. There is a vibrant black middle and wealthy class that have gone beyond the color line mentality. Why does anyone want to hang on to the old hatreds? Showing up on time with a good attitude and the ability to get the job done will win every time.
Comment by Heliotrope — 12.02.06 @ 7:30 pm