Tuesday, January 30: This post is closed to commenting. Continue the discussion at Has “White Guilt” Run Its Course?
Update II: Affirmative action for pastors?
Update: Commenter Michael Burrow writes:
“If we want to keep AA [t]hen it should go full circle. I want to see the rough percentages of our population on all the sports teams, both professional and college. That way nobody is left out. It’s not my fault that I was born a slow white man with no athletic talent.” 
Later…In response to Proposal 2, the law that bars race and sex preferences in government hiring and admissions, the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, created the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. It’s a way to get around the law, but it will have unintended consequences. An administrator at the Equal Opportunity Office said the designation disadvantaged could refer to any business, without regard to the color of the owner’s skin.
Writes John Rosenberg, “Imagine that! The ‘Equal Opportunity Office’ has discovered that equal opportunity can be promoted without racial discrimination!”
——————————————————————————————————–
Updates on Michigan’s fight to end skin color preferences
After 58 percent of Michigan voters said “No more preferences!” last November, three state universities requested and received permission to delay the implementation of Proposal 2, a measure that bars race and sex preferences in government hiring and admissions.
Last month Jennifer Gratz, a plaintiff in the Gratz v. Bollinger case, left a comment on the blog to let me know the 6th Circuit lifted the injunction against Proposal 2, which means state universities must carry out the voters’ wishes immediately.
As expected, skin color-preference proponents appealed to the Supreme Court, which decline to reverse the 6th Circuit’s order. Taxpayer-supported universities in Michigan, how ever begrudgingly, must not admit students based on the color of their skin.
Bummer. 
But these are merely procedural matters. The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (don’t laugh), aka BAMN, and others are seeking to overturn Proposal 2.
It’s important for people to understand that race preferences by design discriminate on the basis of race. If a school’s admissions policy is to accept a certain number of blacks, other races must be excluded to accommodate those admittees. In order for any school to maintain academic standards, they are allowed to discriminate against students based on grades and test scores. There’s nothing repugnant about that. But race is different, as our country’s history clearly indicates.
BAMN and others are determined to knock Proposal 2 off the books, and the Supreme Court may end up hearing the case. The lower-standards-for-blacks group is challenging Proposal 2 on three shaky grounds:
- Proposal 2 is preempted by the Civil Rights Act of 1964
True, but this fact hurts BAMN’s cause. BAMN and others want to maintain racially discriminatory government policies, which are prohibited by the Act. In that regard, it’s difficult to tell which part of the Act BAMN is relying upon, in light of statements like this: “…shall be entitled…without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
- Proposal 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
False. According to the Equal Protection Clause I read, “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That means all people in Michigan, regardless of color, are protected by law from racial discrimination, which is the purpose of Proposal 2. Which Equal Protection Clause are BAMN’s lawyers reading?
- Proposal 2 violates the First Amendment as affirmed by the Supreme Court decision, Grutter v. Bollinger
Depends. The Grutter court cited Justice Powell’s assertion in Bakke that schools have a First Amendment, “academic freedom” interest in admitting underqualified black students. Powell said the “nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure’ to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation.”
No one has shown that “wide exposure to ideas and mores” justifies circumventing the Constitution and discriminating against people based on race, or how so-called wide exposure to diverse “ideas and mores” is beneficial, or any correlation between good leadership and “wide exposure” to diverse “ideas and mores”…you get the point.
Maybe some smart person out there can explain something to me. What’s the worst that could happen if schools admitted students based on grades, test scores, and perhaps extracurricular activities, without regard to skin color?
Addendum: Those who believe skin color and legacy admissions are equivalent, morally or otherwise, should read the following articles:
{ 1 trackback }
{ 104 comments }
“According to the Equal Protection Clause I read, ‘no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ That means all people in Michigan, regardless of color, are protected by law from racial discrimination, which is the purpose of Proposal 2.” This is a point not about affirmative action, but the EPC actually doesn’t mention race. While the clause has, since the death of the P&I clause in 1873, been understood as a generic antidiscrimination clause, there is good reason to think that the original meaning of the clause was that states have a duty to protect all the people within the state–protect them from things like physical violence. So the clause should perhaps be called the “(equal) protection clause.” See, e.g., Maltz, Harrison, and Avins.
That’s actually a good point. The clause doesn’t mention race, and regardless of the original purpose behind it, we can still apply the clause to such laws that are designed to protect citizens.
By the way, the links you posted go to a sign in page. Are they cases or articles?
The drafters of the EPC intended there to be affirmative action for blacks–see the creation of the Freedmen’s Bureau.
If you subscribe to originalism as a theory of judicial interpretation, that should carry some weight.
“What’s the worst that could happen if schools admitted students based on grades, test scores, and perhaps extracurricular activities, without regard to skin color?” Nothing, assuming that that all racial privileges are wiped away and there is “true” equality. Also, schools use more than just grades and test scores to evaluate potential students and just because you have the grades and scores, does not always mean you will get into to that particular school and that goes for any race. These arguments always only focus on the numbers which does not paint the whole picture when one looks at university admissions and it assumes that everything else is equal. It also fails to mention that no one is truly denied of a college education and just because one school did not accept you, does not mean that others will not. And there is an assumption of admittance, and people assume that they are gurranteed to get in and when they dont, instead of brushing themselves off and applying/getting into another school, they want to blame Affirmative Action because they cant accept their own failure. If one is advocating the end of Affirmative Action, solely for the benefit of admitting more whites into college, than they are no different than the people who are advocating for Affirmative Action, solely for the benefit of admitting more black & hispanic students.
Last, why when a white kid is accepted with poor grades and poor test scores, the same people who oppose affirmative action and racial preferences, are not in outraged?
TVD
I looked up Freedman’s Bureau
http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/excrofre.html
No doubt there was in “intent” to “normalize” freed slaves. Unfortunately, these ideas were not implimented.
Since there are no more freed slaves to “normalize”, I believe it is a “stretch” to believe the EPC were thinking of our modern version of racial preferences and affirmative action.
I happen to believe in policies that admit students based on race. Having been educated in nationally recognized universities, I have seen the benefits of Affirmative Action first hand.
Universities have a great need to have a diverse population on their campuses. It adds to the college experience and to the attractiveness of the unversity. Why are people so outraged with race-based preference but remain silent on other types of preference? My belief is that it is because race-based preferences help Blacks and are seen as a form of reparations and we all know how America feels about reparations (for Blacks that is because they freely gave them to the Japanese and Jews).
As a Black woman who grew up attending predominantly white schools, I probably benefitted from some race-preference. Meaning, at least one of the schools I attended probably took a chance on me when my scores may not have measured up. Do I feel guilty? No. I succeeded nevertheless, and am an alumni who they can be proud of?
Did I take the place of a “more deserving white”? Not anymore than the kid whose grades sucked but whose parents were big donors to the school, or the kid who happened to be a legacy ( a form of white-affirmative action), or the athlete, or the kid who spent half of his life living abroad, etc…
Why don’t people care about these forms of preference? I can only guess that it’s because they benefit mainly whites…
To say that grades should be the only factor in determining who attends a school is completely missing the point having a diverse university. You can’t deplore one form of preference while ignoring the others.
“Since there are no more freed slaves to “normalizeâ€, I believe it is a “stretch†to believe the EPC were thinking of our modern version of racial preferences and affirmative action.”
The concept of remedying past discrimination through affirmative action is well established by the legislative intent–the creation of the Freedmen’s Bureau isn’t the only evidence of that, and I think the modern, watered-down version of affirmative action (the quota-free, diversity-based kind) squares with the drafter’s intent.
I’ve been a long time opponent of kids getting ahead in arenas where their peers are judged by a different standard, simply because their parents or their grandparents have financial or social advantage.
We’ve had time to take advantage of the oppotunities before us. For those that haven’t, what is so deserving about having “the luck of the draw” to be born a certain color?
“Hi, I’m ______ so gimme!”
I’ve been victimized by racism beyond a doubt (when people are using the terms “dark one”, “blacky” and “nigger” you can be pretty sure where they’re coming from), but we have had the ways and means to become heads of companies, academia and states, so why do we insist on being given more?
There are ethnic preference policies in effect that benefit every group known to man who comes to or lives in America, and these benefits are based on completely immutable values.
How fair that that be?
Mark you state “we have had the ways and means to become heads of companies, academia and states, so why do we insist on being given more?”
Is the opportunity to compete “more”? It seems you have the mentality that “I got mine, so now you get yours”…
Any gains that Blacks have made over the years
has mainly been inspite of the racism and prejudice that they have faced. You don’t become a head of a company or university because of affirmative action. However, you may get the opportunity to even compete academically because of affirmative action. Even if you qualify via grades, etc. without affirmative action there is no impetus for the university to even give you a chance. Now, universities have to compete for the best and brightest of blacks due to having these policies.
Why do we always assume that affirmative action leads to “less” qualified blacks being admitted? Maybe it’s our own prejudices…
Everyone,
There is an inherent danger if we as a people are not aware of what acts and amendments are being passed without fully looking at the big picture. Sure it sounds great and good, but let’s not forget why we needed affirmative action. The purpose was not to get freebies, but to ensure minorities were given a fair chance. This includes women also. Before “preferences” a lot of women and minorities who were just as capable as their white male counterparts were not given opportunities because of their skin color and gender. We have a generation of individuals who have never experienced blatant prejudice, but the quiet, sneaky, under the table type prevails, and they are not aware of it. I see it every week. Look at our current school system and I dare someone to tell me that it is equal.
Don’t get me wrong, we need to work hard and not expect to be given anything, that is just good values. However, because as a whole minorities and women are still seen as second class in the U.S. we need to remain diligent about any measure that would take our rights away that our people fought and died for.
“Is the opportunity to compete “moreâ€? It seems you have the mentality that “I got mine, so now you get yoursâ€â€¦”
~Actually, that’s the polar opposite of the point I was making. So many times I’ve heard from people around me that they weren’t able to get into a given institution because of White headship. We were enabled to walk right in and become heads in our own right, and return that opportunity to the people around us so that even IF there was a situation where a minority youth couldn’t get into an institution because of skin color, there would be an equal opportunity to enter an institution where skin color would not be an obstacle as the result of a deliberate effort.
Beeter to say my point is more “We should have gotten ours so that the next guy has no reason NOT to get his.”
My chief complaint about Affirmative Action isn’t that it puts lesser wualified individuals in a position to fail, though that certainly is a factor and sometiems, a deliberate one.
My chief complaint is the effect it has on the mentality of people involved with it. One thinks “those people shouldn’t get this” or “they only got it because”, while another thinks “they owe this to me so they better watch out” or “I deserve this through no effort of my own other than my skin”.
Now I would certainly be a fool to deny that there have been wonderful results as a result of AA, and doors were opened for people who readily took advantage of the chance to make the most of themselves, it’s got to end at some point.
With the current social situation being so far removed from the days of common lynching, sanctioned segregation and openly media supported racist hostility, how can we say that anyone today can’t make it farther than people who not only survived those days, but thrived?
I’m not denying the continued existence and effect of racism. I see it almost daily. However, in a land where a person would be held to public ridicule and even legal action for merely using a racist epitaph, to say that it’s still a group-wide roadblock just doesn’t hold water.
“I deserve this through no effort of my own other than my skinâ€.–
Is that the mentality you think Black people have? Maybe you just have a low opinion of your people (if you are Black).
The pure fact that someone could even partake in the fruits of Affirmative Action means that they did put forth some “effort”. One has to fill out the application, gather the necessary materials, etc. Why suppose that just because someone has benefitted from Affirmative Action means they are just depending on their skin color to give them a pass?
I beleive many have sought out opportunities that were previously closed to them because they know that at least they cannot be denied solely based on “skin color”.
I wish there was not a need for Affirmative Action. But the fact remains that you cannot give one group centuries of a “head start” and then finally start the race for the other, and say “now catch up”!
You can’t say things are equal when on every news channel the #1 question is “Is America Ready for A Black President?”
Actually the opposition to race/gender preferences is not motivated by people who held an “assumption of admittance,†Roye.
Jennifer Gratz, like Allan Bakke before her, could prove that her grades and test scores were superior to the vast majority (in Bakke’s case All) of those admitted under those race/gender preferences.
Moreover, those who support preferences have never argued a credible historical reason for them.
It can’t be argued that they’re “a response to past discriminations,†as discrimination can never be the antidote to other discrimination.
Opponents of race/gender preferences do not seem to oppose them ostensibly for “the admittance of more whites,†as the greatest benefactors of eradicating such preferences have been Asian students. In many school’s engineering and science departments, upwards of 60% of the students are Asian, dspite accounting for only 8% of the overall population.
Again, there is no argument for generally admitting people on the basis of test scores, grades, outside activities, other achievements and public service alone. The disproportionate numbers of Asians is not “unfair,” by any credible standard.
The argument that race, ethnicity or gender should be a factor is, in effect, arguing on the side of those who supported Jim Crow segregation in the past!
Now, which white kids are accepted with poor grades and test scores?
Those on athletic scholarships?!
Don’t argue that!!!
That goes across the board for Collegiate athletes.
I oppose race/gender preferences, alumni and donor preferences and yes, even athletic scholarships – College athletics has become a business for the schools and in many places those “student-athletes†don’t get an education, they get a the equivalent of a “Minor League†deal for their given sport.
The Founder of the Freedman’s Bureau meant it to be temporary, as did the Founders of the modern version of Affirmative Action. Even Judge Sandra O’Conner said so.
But few are brave enough to say “NOW” is the time to end this practice.
That is why legistators are “chicken hawks” on racial issues – they don’t want to go on record as opposing affirmative action.
The response of the Michigan Republicans was typical – when it came time “to be counted”, tyey about faced and “supported” the MI Civil Rights Initiative.
Then they defer to judges to do their unpleasant work.
I’ve written about so-called affirmative action too many times to count. As I’ve said before, affirmative action in its original form was to be a net “cast wide” to include historically excluded people into hiring and admissions pools. It became, to the disgrace of any black person with an ounce of pride, a systematic, lowered standards policy for black people, in violation of the very laws resulting from the civil rights movement and anathema to the spirit of the movement itself. Follow the “Race Preferences” category link at the end of this post to read some of the earlier entries for background.
Everybody seems to forget the lower class or middle class white people who are also struggling to send their kids to school. They don’t have somebody handing them a scholarship or preferred admission status because of their color. They simply have bills to pay or the unfortunate job of telling their kids, sorry we can’t afford to send you to school.
I have little respect for somebody who thinks they deserve to get an advantage because of their skin color, black, white, red, brown, I don’t care what color they are. When I hired people to work in my department, I judged them on their abilities AND their attitude, and I hired men and women of many “colors” and my judgment when I hired them proved I was right.
There are so many “colors” and “multi-colors” in this country anymore that it’s unrealistic to think that preferences based on color are going to give advantages in the future. We’re all “colored” and the playing field is based on achievement and attitude and luck. It’s as simple as that.
I feel that the articles that said that sex and legacy discrimination are OK were kind of weak on their arguments. They basically said don’t change the subject or that women’s and legacies’ grades were lower…but not as low as blacks. Still doesn’t sound fair.
I am also tickled when people argue against AA because it makes whites look down on blacks. Who cares what they think about you(unless they are your boss
? I am sure that white folks could care less what you think about them.
I say GET RID OF ALL PREFERENCES!!! Even athletic ones. If the athlete does not have the minimum grade requirements don’t take them. You should not discriminate based on race but you can based on athletic talent? Isn’t that racist too since it has been stated over and over, even on this site that for some reason, blacks tend to be more athletically inclined than whites. AND they tend to be even less qualified then the other black unqualifieds. Or is it OK because they bring in money for the school? Even then some poor white or Asian person will suffer for lack of admission.
Are people arguing that race based AA is bad because it is against the law or morally wrong? If it is morally wrong, so is other types of discrimination. If it is only based on the law…ok. We should not break the law. Let’s make the other forms against the law too.
Also, all blacks aren’t dumb. What about those of us with good grades and SAT scores? We probably got into college because of affirmative action too. I probably would not have gotten into my college if I was not black (even though I passed an interview, graduated in the top 10 (not percent, the top 10) of my class (no it was not a poor low standard school. It was a nationally recognized school with white and black students) and had an above 1200 SAT score (I can’t remember the exact number). I am sure that they could have found an equally qualified white person and would have loved to have had them if they did not have to take me or someone like me.
I am against all types of discrimination but (and this is mean) I don’t think that whites give enough of a care about blacks to insure that QUALIFIED blacks will get into a university once AA ends.
So basically we will see the rise of HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities, not that that is a bad thing) because once AA is gone I think that schools will not have a reason to admit EVEN qualified blacks (except for the sports teams). Why should they? Because they are fair and want to? Ha!
“so is other types of discrimination”
oops! My poor ebonic English. Sorry:)
so are other types…
Dianne @ #17,
Well said. I concur…
“What’s the worst that could happen if schools admitted students based on grades, test scores, and perhaps extracurricular activities, without regard to skin color?”
The worst that could happen would be that “elite” universities would become predominantly Asian, at least here on the Left Coast, and the rest of us would have to go to the “second-tier” colleges and universities.
In fact, as a white person, I find it quite interesting to hear the debate about AA argued from the perspective of competing “minority” groups. (The reason why I put “minority” in quotes is because in California we’re fast approaching the day when no single ethnic group will have a clear majority. In fact, that day has arrived at my local high school where the percentage of Black, White, and Hispanic students is roughly equal.)
Not every student who wants to attend an “elite” university is equipped to attend, either by temperament, ability, or preparation. Dr. Sowell makes the argument that by allowing a student to attend an “elite” university s/he is not prepared for, we are actually hurting two students: the one not admitted and the one who is not prepared for the rigors of the “elite” university. He cites dropout rates to support his thesis. If those students who are not sufficiently prepared are encouraged to enroll in a community college or a “second-tier” university, they can fill in the gaps of their education, graduate, and become successful.
Frankly, once you have your first job, no one cares where you went to school. Performance counts in real life.
A second person actually answers the question I posed. Thanks, MH.
Personally I think a university ought to be able to select or exclude anyone for any reason.
However if a university is supported in whole or in part by the taxpayers, then all bets are off and they should be willing to admit any citizen who wants to apply. Of course if the student’s grades are not up to par, they may be admitted into a remedial program to prove that they can handle college-level study.
An interesting read with implications for socialism and programs that foster dependency is “The End of The Spear” by Steve Saint. He talks about how debilitating it is for entities such as governments, missionaries, etc to go into an indigenous peoples area and “manage” their lives for them. He has seen in many cases that the people lose their identity, drive or motivation, and that the children in those areas become lazy and caught up in drugs and prostitution. It is much better to teach them how to survive in this world than to do everything for them. The implications for welfare and racial preference.
If we want to keep AA. Then it should go full circle. I want to see the rough percentages of our population on all the sports teams, both professional and college. That way nobody is left out. It’s not my fault that I was born a slow white man with no athletic talent.
““I deserve this through no effort of my own other than my skinâ€.–
Is that the mentality you think Black people have? Maybe you just have a low opinion of your people (if you are Black).”
~Perhaps you missed the part where I clearly stated not all minority beneficiaries think this way. I’ll wait while you go back and re-read what I actually wrote.
JMK, by stating what you stated, you proved my point about the assumption. Even though they had high grades and test scores, it does not guarantee admission.
And I have to ask, how is applying gender, race, and ethnicity when factoring in college admission the same as Jim Crow segregation? And how is that discrimination when no one is denied access to college? I am not advocating the practice, I am just trying to figure out the comparisons.
Also, you ask as though it is not possible for a white kid to be accepted into college with poor grades and test scores. We all know that there are under achievers and poor performers in all racial groups who still manage to get into college, but only one group carries the, “It must have been Affirmative Action†banner…..
“Perhaps you missed the part where I clearly stated not all minority beneficiaries think this way.”
I don’t think that there are any that think that way.
““Perhaps you missed the part where I clearly stated not all minority beneficiaries think this way.â€
I don’t think that there are any that think that way.”
~I’ve met plenty and some are in my own family. Doesn’t mean I don’t love ‘em, but it’s still wrong. I’m not saying that’s the totality of thought behind what they say, but that’s what “You owe me ’cause I’m ________” breaks down to when examined.
Unless of course, that individual has been clearly denied something on basis of skin. Like many White people trying to get into some of these schools.
Um, again, aren’t we talking about (in the case of Ivy League admits, even those in the bottom quartile) folks with high GPAs/SAT scores? I have trouble believing that such results are attainable merely by virtue of showing up and being black.
My position is that AA should stay, because it has produced (or, at the very very least coincided, but I think it’s hard to deny the connection between a good education and being middle class) with the explosion of the black middle class. That’s a clear, present, and tangible benefit. Unless you can show a clear, present and tangible cost to white people on the same scale, I think there’s a seriously solid argument for AA as (1) having produced positive gains; and (2) not harming white people in the aggregate, and even, indeed in the individual cases–for instance, Jennifer Gratz seems to have made out OK.
Michael Burrow, post #25
You should read this article:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0007,hsiao,12566,3.html
“…once AA is gone I think that schools will not have a reason to admit EVEN qualified blacks (except for the sports teams). Why should they? Because they are fair and want to? Ha!” (Heather)
Actually THAT presupposes the exact wrong answer to Lashawn’s question.
Without preferences, Colleges and Universities would still admit students based on a range of parameters – grades, test scores, community involvement (volunteerism, etc) and extra-curricula achievements, and they’d most certainly llok to maintain a diverse student body.
The group hurt most by preferences today is Asians NOT whites. Most Asians don’t get donor or alumni preferences, many aren’t here long enough, so they’re forced to compete for fewer spots.
That’s wrong.
It’s absurd to think that, “given a level playing field every group would get into Law School, Medical School, earn pilots licenses, etc in strict accordance with their numbers in society.”
It doesn’t work that way. Individuals have different interests and various cultures nurture various skill-sets, thus people from one background tend to predominate in one area, while those of another prdeominate in another.
People are individuals and discrimination is an act that impacts people as individuals. That’s why “disparate impact” is an absurd measuring stick for discrimination, each individual must bear the burden of proving individual discrimination, the way a person slandered must prove both the malice & intent of the person charged.
As I said, or meant to say, “Again, there is no argument AGAINST generally admitting people on the basis of test scores, grades, outside activities, other achievements and public service alone. The disproportionate numbers of Asians is not “unfair,†by any credible standard.”
Sometimes we have to let the chips fall where they may.
“JMK, by stating what you stated, you proved my point about the assumption. Even though they had high grades and test scores, it does not guarantee admission.”
It is supposed to warrant their admission ahead of anyone with lower grades and test scores.
We can’t talk of “Bakke’s failure,” in that light.
The answer isn’t “Come on, suck it up Allan, even tthough your grades and test scores were higher than those “protected students,” those seats are reserved and you’ll have to compete better next year.”
Bakke applied to Medical School with a 4.0 Index aand very high MCAT scores.
Discriminating “in favor” of any race is discriminating AGAINST all others. That’s why such preferences are the same as “Jim Crow segregation,” they amount to a segregation of standards.
Legacy and donor preferences for the likes of Gore, Bush and Ted Kennedy are bad, but they aren’t overt “racial discrimination” as the same types of preferences are available to any black doctor or lawyer who is an alumni or donor to a given school.
The only reason that “only one group carries the, “It must have been Affirmative Action†banner…” ” is because only one ethnic group is given such preferences.
Same with Civil Service exams. Yes preferences have stigmatized many competant blacks who actually did well on those promotion exams, but the wheat can surely be seen from the chaff. Competant people display their competance daily and routinely.
There SHOULD be a stigma attached to those who get promoted despite failing those promotion exams due to race. Not only is the practicve abhorent, it violates the principles of equal access and equal protection under the law.
Neither race, ethnicity nor gender should be allowed to be officially used as a positive or a negative when considering applicants for Colleges, entry level positions or Civil Service promotions.
A segregation of standards is as immoral as any Jim Crow laws of he past.
What’s the worst that could happen if schools admitted students based on grades, test scores, and perhaps extracurricular activities, without regard to skin color? (I’ll include the “legacy” factor as well.)
Those who did not make the cut would have to settle for the tier that would accept them.
Some will find that they can only get into a diploma mill.
Large colleges would probably be forced to boost their scholarships for highly qualified, but “under represented” minorities. They would do this because they are liberal institutions by nature and it would become a necessary tool to stay competitive in their recruitment environment.
Of course, many would call this a form of discrimination, but so long as public money is not involved, it would be legal.
I am continually amazed at the whining about affirmative action. Please! Where is the hospital, engineering firm, technical production facility, etc. that is not hungry for the best and the brightest without regard to color, religion or cultural difference?
Affirmative Action is not part of the invisible hand that regulates the clockwork of capitalism in the modern age.
The arguments for the “benefits” of Affirmative Action are a lot like the arguments of the pro-choice crowd. The proponents engage in the spewing of a euphemism pollen and bald denial of core principles which combine in a miasma of enigmatic blather that only a mother could pretend to esteem.
Affirmative Action is a core sensory issue. It is not of the brain. The 14th Amendment makes that abundantly clear.
18. “…once AA is gone I think that schools will not have a reason to admit EVEN qualified blacks (except for the sports teams). Why should they? Because they are fair and want to? Ha!” Heather in MD
As a white person I can tell you that, in my experience, your hostility is 100% one sided. I’ve never met a white person under the age of 70 who cared one way or the other about an individual’s race. Within a few years, if it hasn’t already happened, the last few of these old racist schmucks are gonna retire or die, and you’re going to have to find another excuse* for the discriminatory and illegal practice of race-based admissions.
*I say “excuse” because I don’t believe that these “good ole boys” or whatever you want to call them have any significant influence on admissions now. Even if AA was universally eliminated and there was no possibility of legal repercussions, anyone who tried that would be crucified in the press faster than Heather in MD can yell “all you crackers are out to get me”.
Wow, Shade, Thanks for the article. I was joking. I didn’t realise that the NBA had AA. Now only if they could go back to being able to shoot foul shots. I started watching the WNBA becasue they play a more pure game. Teamwork, shooting, passing etc.
Regarding #6 Nicole you state “Universities have a great need to have a diverse population on their campuses. It adds to the college experience and to the attractiveness of the unversity.”
I just have to ask you why. Are you saying that there wouldn’t be any black students on a college campus if it were not for “affirmative action” or are you saying that there wouldn’t be as many black students? If it is the latter what percentage of black students make a school more attractive?
“Why do we always assume that affirmative action leads to “less†qualified blacks being admitted?”
Are you KIDDING? It IS a program specifically designed to admit less qualified blacks. Doh.
And if you are offended that some believe that blacks think ‘I deserve this through no effort of my own other than my skin”, then perhaps you should stop advocating that you should get this because of nothing more than your skin.
Sorry, folks. I just think you are going to have a hard time coming up with a valid excuse for racial discrimination.
Just a question about this notion that athletic preferences are on the same level as AA, and equally objectionable….
Quite frankly, I don’t really see athletic admissions as a form of preference, but rather as a response to a proffered skill in much the same way as a person with superior musical skill or academic skill is given a preference. To me, it is legitimate to value mastery of a skill in various forms, athletic prowess being among them.
LaShawn asked, what’s the worst that can happen? I’m not personally worried because I can’t relate to succeeding based on low standards, so I don’t have an existential dread of merit-based programs. I’m not threatened by them. I am so used to earning what I get that pride in the reverse is alien to my mindset. For those relying on it, it’s an opportunity to find out what they could be if they pushed themselves. They’ll never find out as long as everyone is telling them that the easy road is the only one they’re fit to travel.
The reason AA is associated with low standards is because they nakedly operate that way. U of M said it to me in black and white. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can see the studies done on U of M’s form of AA for yourself. The practice was that when a white person got a particular score, it was considered too low and the candidate was rejected. When a black or Hispanic had that exact score, they were accepted. If the black students accepted that way wants to take pride in that, it’s their call, I guess, but they shouldn’t expect to be respected. Now at least when a black student is on the campus no one will have a legitimate reason to doubt their presence there.
Everyone talks about legacies. I gather that the ones who think of legacy admits as slackers are remembering their youths when it worked that way. Harvard noted that their current day legacy admits aren’t the slacker students. Back in the 60’s they were like today’s AA admits, in that they were underqualified and tended to flunk out and be placed on academic probation. They changed the rules, though. http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050547.html
If you think about it, makes sense that legacies are qualified to go to this or that school. If your parents went to Harvard, they likely went on to earn enough to send you to a good school, and they valued education enough to make you study and get you help in the subjects you weren’t good in. It’s like what Abigail said once to John Q. (Adams), regarding the outcome of his educational advantages, “It would be unpardonable if you were a blockhead.â€
I think people don’t care as much about legacies because people don’t (usually) get upset when someone more qualified than they are beat them at something. They get upset when they’re playing by the rules and by the rules should win but are beaten out by someone who is not even eligible to be in the contest.
I do feel a little bad for the people who are relying on handicapping the others in the contest, though. It seems they have bought into the idea that they really are lesser and really can’t make it and that is just sad all around. It’s sad, because people who think that way about themselves always seem to accept less than what’s possible.
“Maybe some smart person out there can explain something to me. What’s the worst that could happen if schools admitted students based on grades, test scores, and perhaps extracurricular activities, without regard to skin color?”
The answer is that almost all of the time we do admit those solely based on grades, test scores, and most definitely extracurricular activities. You can’t get into Harvard, University of Chicago, Brown, Stanford, Georgetown, UMBC, Towson, or Reed with a low GPA, low SATs, and no to barely any extracurriculars.
However, if you are required to put down what race or ethnicity you are, or optionally talk about your race in an admission essay, then it will be factored into the admission process. Is this fair? So as long as it matters for the reason why you put it there in the first place.
I want to emphasize that just by telling your preferred college or job of your interest that you are black, Asian, or Native American and deserve a position in their ranks just for being apart of that group is absurd and does not happen in ordinary circumstances (as is the usual in reality, case in point: the controversial admission of a black woman over at one of the more prestigious colleges/universities in the West; look at what happened).
There are not droves of people at the tons of colleges across the nation I’ve been to who do not belong there. I know of no one who has been wrongly selected. Want to know an interesting fact about schools that are hard to get into and have low admissions rate? For places that accept only 10-20% of those who apply, over 80% of those who apply are qualified to be there. I know of no black, Asian, or Hispanic that does not deserve to go to these colleges.
I speak from experience: I’m a college student at a small liberal arts college that emphasizes the Western Canon and the Great Books Program. I’m one of three black people (if one wants to call me black; one-drop culture and all) in the freshman class and we are admitted based on our credentials, interest in the Liberal Arts, and a desire for academic excellence.
I did not have it as easy as most of my peers here after speaking with most of the freshman class. Strikingly, most of the differences come from being a minority, and having to deal with the social conditions that black people have to endure. Another substantial portion has to do do with my low-economic background. I rose from two lines of single mothers and a none of them have college degrees. My background is more obscure and rare: I almost failed out of High School (I’m the only black male to graduate from my high school), and I chose to go to the Community College for two years before I wanted to be someone special (though I did in High School, but there was substantial difficulties and no role models for someone like me) It was hard, but I’ve succeeded where others have failed. However, I’ve had it easier in some ways than others. For instance I am considered of mixed racial blood and people of darker complexion than I had it much tougher. However, the mental fears that most black men acquire when rising above their circumstance still prevails. But more on that later.
My fiance attends an Ivy League, and I’ve visited the place many times. I’ve met many incoming freshmen and upperclassmen who are black and Asian. They are all extremely intelligent, and by any standard, could be accepted to any place they want. However, they were fortunate, not just qualified (remember the statistics?), just to be accepted into those places of learning and great opportunity. The unfortunate thing is that many black students at these schools feel disenfranchised because many people think they got in for their race, but the ironic thing is that they are still in the extreme minority in they college they attend and at most colleges in general. Does that matter? Not so much, but it does have affect in the communities and in people.
I think the problem is that some people think some gangster or some half ass 2.0 GPA having minority is applying to Virginia Tech or Vanderbilt Univeserity and getting in. No.
Affirmative Action is not so stupid. It pushes those who usually wouldn’t succeed but do. Black people, and in my experience, black men have it very hard when coming from poverty, a big city, a family of low-educated people, and where gangs and crime flourish. But so do others, and so as long as you express that, and are qualified to attend whatever institution, you’ll be fine.
I find that a lot of people on Ms. Barber’s blog think that the past is dead, or that “those times are over”, saying that the past doesn’t affect the present when it comes to black discrimination. Well, that’s very wrong.
I, and every black person I know who have succeeded into college (and this is limited to those who I have met), feel the presence of others who are constantly challenging and questioning our intelligence. America has attempted, after the abolition of slavery, and well past the civil rights movement, to justify the degradation in black intelligence, ability, and aptitude.
It’s bad enough to be poor, for who can not be poor? It’s bad enough to struggle against the unknown, for who hasn’t done that? But to rise up against the insecurities and social norms of the majority is intense, and especially when it is like they are attacking your very humanity.
I have many friends who are like me in this way, and many are white, Asian, Jewish, and Hispanic. However, the dominant culture has chosen to uphold the values of a given people over others, and the judgment of the enlightened does happen to be biased. The Civil Rights movement did a lot for all peoples across the world, but it did not erase the damage that has been done in this country. Our country, government, and society has tainted the minds and disenfranchised many people across racial, ethnic, and religious lines.
Lastly, I want to emphasize that undergraduate colleges and universities are not these fair and just entities. As I said earlier, they do not accept certain people not because they were not fit to be there, but because they do like diversity which is something I noticed on this blog people do not believe in having. Why do schools reject people who are qualified?
Resources and prestige value. So therefore, how do we decide which people to choose? Well, it’d be best to pick out those which are qualified, but we already did that. So what qualifications do we use next? People are usually chosen for passions and interests that are different from most people. If you’re passionate about Urban Development, you’re going to be chosen over the one person who wants to be a doctor because the quota for doctors have already been met.
That’s diversity. If a college wants racial diversity, it would matter to the extent to which that persons race defines them and the way they explain it in their admissions application. If an Indian guy says he wants to be a cook who specializes in Indian food, that’d be more interesting than having all people who are just interested in cooking just French. That creates discussion. If that person is Chinese, and they believe that their race and culture is inseparable and desire to become a leader in X, then they’ll be chosen for that difference.
It IS sad. And there is no getting around it. If they were really afraid that they were being discriminated AGAINST, then they would be for leaving racial information OFF of all forms. But that has been fought against tooth and nail.
Responce to Commenter Michael Burrow:
It’s given that one can contrast and compare a system of quota’s as an unfair practice that is used in business, education, politics or as you’ve contrasted, in sports. However, I believe that the comparision to professional and college sports teams is fundamentally unsound.
Professional and college sports teams are purely profit driven enterprises. Although colleges do recruit students for various academic programs, I seriously doubt academic recruiting efforts comes close to the recruiting efforts of even the average athlete.
Unlike the student admitted to a college or university to satisfy a quota, the athlete is admitted to satisfy institutions economic need. Simply put, the college “makes” money. The academic student “must” have a means of paying for the education (be it scholarship or financial aid).
Basically the same can be said at the professional sports level. Professional sports franchises are entirely profit driven. It’s in their best, and only interest to place the best product on the field or court. Moreover, professional athletes are “paid” according to thier abilities. Implementing a quota system in college and pro sports would hardly satisfy the team owners, coaches and fans alike.
I fully understand your discontent with AA policies and so-called “race preferences”. Yet, by comparing what you believe to be a ridiculous practice to an absurd notion berates your entire arguement (Kind of like “cutting off your nose to spite your face”). The issue here needs only to be discussed on it merits, and not by offering a base-less and obsurd comparison.
Perhaps one day there will be a completely race neutral “across the board” standard in all walks of American society.
P. Anthony Allen:
If I understand your point, you are saying AA cannot be compared to college and professional sports because they are ‘profit driven enterprises’.
Affirmative Action and race preferences are not limited to college admissions. They are used in government jobs. They are used in the awarding of government contracts (certainly profit driven enterprises).
What’s the difference?
P. Anthony Allen
I was making an absurd comparison because I believe the whole notion of quotas is absurd. I want to be evaluated for jobs, educations etc. on my level of qualifications for the job period. My skin color or lack of it, should never even be an issue. I’m all for taking the race box off all the forms. I spent many years in the Navy on submarines. We never cared about race there. How you did you job was the only factor. That’s the standard that I want to live by.
I know Jennifer Gratz’s family and they are very fine upstanding folks. Fairness or unfairness is a fact of life in everything we do. Check out the case of Genarlow Wilson in Georgia. Extremely unfair and another prosecutor gone wild. Our society is truly nuts when stuff like this goes on. This young man has no business being in jail and the prosecutor knows it but won’t do anything about it! I am surprised that you have not jumped on Wilson bandwagon – his life is being wased because of a another trashy girl – when our the courts going to start prosecuting these women.
I’d abolish race based AA immediately and replace it with family income based AA. I see no reason Vernon Jordan’s children should receive preferential treatment while the children of a white trailer park family should not.
I don’t object to a policy that *ends up* disproportionally helping blacks, I object to the notion that racism can be used to combat racism. Domestic violence laws clearly help women more than men but we don’t refuse to apply them when the aggressor is female.
It is mindboggling to me that the same people who directly experienced being denied opportunities because they were the “wrong race” currently espouse policies that produce exactly that result for asians. Income based AA will produce the effect we want but without the baggage, why in the world are we still debating this?
The answer is “Come on suck it up.†I don’t feel sorry for him and I checked that he went on to have a successful career. He was an engineer and had the grades to go to any other school besides UC Davis, so why would I feel sorry for him? How does it violate equal access and equal protection? Racial, gender, and ethnicity preferences does not bar anyone from the access to colleges and universities. You do realize that there are thousands upon thousands of universities and colleges in the United States, and just because one school denies you admission, does not mean you can not go to college and get a degree.
Sorry dude, I don’t agree with your “myth†that the only one ethnic group is given such preferences so that’s why they carry the banner, because even when there is no evidence to prove it, people still assume it is Affirmative Action. Instead of people worrying about their own lives, they have to worry about someone else’s. I honestly do not care how someone got their job or got into college, because it did not stop me from getting my education and getting a job. And it did not stop any of my peers (white, black, Hispanic, Asian etc), my family, and co-workers from accomplishing their goals. And also, Affirmative Action benefits women as well as other ethnic groups like Asians, Hispanics and others, but I don’t see people accusing women of getting their jobs or education because of affirmative action. I don’t go around telling my white peers that they got to where they are because of white privilege, even though, it exists. But apparently, I am not allowed the same respect. I have to be accused of benefiting from a system that I didn’t ask for and I did not create it. I am not the one, who created the system, so why should I carry the blame for it?
And I love the sensationalizing you are doing with the comparisons to Jim Crow. Matter of fact, I am reading them as we type and I don’t see the similarities. Perhaps, you may want to go back and read up on the Jim Crow laws and then come back.
The difference with professional and college athletics is that they deal with an extremely high level of competition. A slight drop in skill level of a team can be the difference in a winning season and a losing season.
Here is an example. If one guy runs the 100 meters in 9.9 second and another runs it in 9.8 seconds, both guys are extremely fast runners. They guy running 9.9 will be quite noticeably behind the guy running the 9.8 in a race, but this .1 second will make practically no difference in chasing a suspect if these guys were police officers. Both would be fast enough to catch practically anybody.
If I needed heart surgery and have a choice between a doctor with a 99.9% success rate versus one at 99.8%, one can assume which one I will select. That “slight drop in skill level” would make the difference for me. The doctor’s skin color or gender would not.
I’m a 3rd year law student currently applying for jobs. One of the firms where I interviewed said they were looking to increase the number of female attorneys at the firm. That bothered me a little – I’d prefer to work somewhere they were looking to increase the number of adept attorneys.
But you would be fairly comfortable with the doctor with the 99.8% success rate if the one with the 99.9% success rate was not available to you right?
To make a similar comparison to high level athletics, you would have to have both doctors in a room performing the exact same surgery with judges scoring them and deciding which would would be crowned world surgery champion and receive a multi-million dollar purse.
Other than that, you have two highly competent doctors with one having a minutely better record that could be the result of circumstances as opposed to greater skill.
Just to note, I understand that we all desire to have the very best working in a particular field, but it is unrealistic for the vast majority of us to be served by the very best. What we do demand is competence and this is where high level athletics differ.
Professional basketball teams are not looking for competence. They are looking for the very best because outdoing all others in direct, head to head competition is their purpose.
Kendrick,
you are being unfair to me. I could care about white peoples opinions of ME one way or another. The same way that I feel about blacks. If you look carefully at my post, I said that I am AGAINST any types of preferences unless it is based on substantial reasons. Like, improving the academic standing of the university as they see fit.
I just hate that every one is against ONLY race based AA but not other kinds and I feel that their arguments are weak.
I thought that I answered Ms. Barber’s question (though not clearly) the worse that will happen is that black folks will start going to HBCUs where they are more qualified to go.
As I stated before, I just resent the notion that all blacks who are successful, got there because of AA and not their personal qualifications. Some of us are smart and can compete with other groups.
I never said that I think all whites are racist but I honestly think that either they don’t care about black people one way or another or they hold some prejudices about blacks based only on their impressions that are based upon racial stereotypes. I have never said that blacks aren’t prejudice as well. My point was why should blacks care what whites will think about them?
As poster #49 stated, all blacks don’t assume that all white people have made it because of white privilege, so why do you all assume that we are all unqualified and have made it only because of affirmative action.
I do believe that AA has helped blacks in situations where they were qualified and the spot was held for them because they were black. It is not fair maybe but that is a far cry from UNQUALIFIED blacks getting a hand out.
For the record Kendrick, I am not a black person that blames my problems on others, white or black, so no, you will not hear me saying anything about a “cracker” holding me back. Thank you for assuming a racism on my part that does not exist.
Roye Barber,
You think being denied admission based on race is no violation of equal access and equal protection because that person could always find SOME school that’ll accept him?
So..I would guess you were okay with ’separate but equal’ back in the day. Right?
After all, just because a black person couldn’t use the water fountain, bus seat, school etc. of his choice didn’t mean he couldn’t find one elsewhere. After all, there were plenty of seats at the back of the bus. Not to mention that another bus would be coming along eventually. Right? And geez, they had schools for the little black kids, too.
Hi,
Ms. Barber, I’ve noticed your last few posts are colored – no pun intended – with racial and ethnic concerns. Is everything alright or is this just the strategy of a mad-blogging genius like yourself.
It’s no myth that AA’s race-based preferences are the ONLY racial preferences codified into policy, Roye.
And yes, that creates the basis for the “presumed incompetence†that many well qualified blacks have had to deal with since the advent of quotas, set-asides and preferences.
That “presumed incompetence†is a terrible burden, but not nearly as much of an injustice as those denied the right to equal access and equal protection before the law that racial preferences inflict upon them, in ways that donor preferences and alumni preferences DON’T, as donor, athletic, geographic and alumni preferences are all open to people of all backgrounds.
The problem with AA is that it was never intended as a preferential program or “quota system,†instead it was suppose to be about encouraging outreach and recruitment to under-represented groups, which are both great things.
The concepts of equal access and equal opportunity are violated by ANY public (government enforced) policy that grants a preference for any group(s), as that preference create a barrier and a direct discrimination AGAINST every group that does not get those preferences.
It is those separate and unequal standards that are every bit equivalent to many of the Jim Crow laws of the past. In fact, while Jim Crow Laws were localized predominantly in the South, AA’s preferential policies are codified nationwide. A separate water fountain didn’t deny any of those forced to deal with that humiliation the opportunities it cost Allan Bakke and the thousands of others denied equal access (the same admissions standards) despite higher grades and test scores than others belonging to arbitrarily “protected†groups.
What’s worse is that we’re all hurt by the Allan Bakke’s being denied equal access, because he was replaced in that school with a lesser qualified (lower grades & test scores) student, a policy resulting in an overall dilution of the quality of students and future medical practitioners.
The New York Fire Department (FDNY) is now in the process of making both its written and physical exams easier – the Vulcans (a black fraternal organization) have sued over the written exam and women’s groups have sued over the physical.
I’ve put over 20 year on that job and am nearing the end of the line, but I care very much about the standards used to assess candidates. In my view the higher the standards, the better the quality of the workforce.
Since you claim you “don’t care how people get their jobs,†then that bolsters my position, which is, “I don’t see why anyone would care about such things as disparate impact. Who cares that a more demanding written exam impacts one group disproportionately? For one thing, it doesn’t prove deliberate discrimination and for another, it ignores the facts that higher standards (1) don’t actually discriminate against ANY racial group (there are plenty of high-achieving blacks) despite any disparate impact that may occur and (2) that those qualifications serve the purpose of maintaining a higher quality workforce.
I believe it is in my best interest to support higher standards for EVERYONE now (as my life may one day depend upon that) and even when I’m retired, as I will always care about the quality and traditions of the FDNY.
Yeah, that’s a real shame about the FDNY. Black people can’t pass the test, so they want to dumb it down. Story of our “diversity” lives:
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/08/10/new-york-city-fire-deparment/
The problem with using legal arguments for or against Affirmative Action as it relates to the University of Michigan is that the entire idea of a government funded educational institution with competitive admissions is inherently unconstitutional and thus making those arguments inherently flawed. If a state built a public highway and then limited access to it to drivers with a certain GPA and SAT score, everyone would be up in arms and it would be immediately struck down in court. Whatever method state universities like U of M use for determining who gets in is inherently unfair and ends up discriminating against someone. Equal protection means that no government benefit should be predicated on arbitrary things like race, GPA, SAT scores, or anything else. The real solution is for institutions like U of M to be privatized and if the state wants to run it’s own universities then they should be run using the Community College model where there is a set of reasonable minimum standards for admission.
David: Your argument about public universities setting certain academic standards is what’s weak. After all, you contradict yourself in your last sentence when you state then they should be run using the Community College model where there is a set of reasonable minimum standards for admission. What is “reasonable”? And, why isn’t U. of M.’s “reasonable”?
In addition, using your argument would apply to state employment — there should be no set standards for anyone who works for the federal and/or state government! After all, if state [higher] education institutions cannot set academic standards for admissions, then state employment sectors similarly should not be able to set employment standards. To do so would violate the EP Clause, right?
“Yeah, that’s a real shame about the FDNY. Black people can’t pass the test, so they want to dumb it down. Story of our “diversity†lives:” (Lashawn)
Sadly the lawsuits against the already weak written portion of the exam have been brought by professional “advocacy groups” who insultingly use the argument that “written exams discriminate against blacks” due to what Claude Steele (Shelby’s Liberal brother) calls “stereotype threat.”
That view is horrifically wrong and is an example of blacks endorsing a form of white supremacy by considering themselves handicapped by such things as the low expectations of others and “stereotype threat.”
It’s clearly an irrational view when one looks to the not too distnat past when men like Reggie Julius (a black Battalion Chief in the FDNY who scored extremely high on every promotion exam he ever took and Gus Beekman, raised in an orphange, who rose on shear merit to Chief-of-Department (the highest Civil Service rank in the FDNY) and later Fire Commissioner.
No! Blacks are NOT handicapped and standardized exams (written or physical) don’t discriminate against them. That is a poisonous view and the fact that some blacks accept this because they see a short-term advantage in it is truly sad.
I knew Reggie Julius and he wasn’t only a very sharp guy, he was an excellent Chief and a an incredibly self-confident fellow, with good reason.
He was rightly proud of his accomplishments and detested those whom he felt cheapened them by endorsing preferences and quotas.
Thanks for that great link Lashawn! I hadn’t seen that post of yours.
Let me offer some other reasons why fewer blacks even take the FDNY entrance exam.
While many of the whites who take these tests grew up outside the city and never saw the slimy, dirty part of this job (the actual work of putting a fire out is more often than not backbreaking and filthy) and hear mainly about the good parts of the job – the schedule (two 24-hour tours per week), the pride Fire Companies have, the cammeraderie, etc., while many blacks who live in the city see the dirty, filthy, grimey side of this job quite often.
When little kids used to visit the South Bronx firehouse where I worked, I was heartened when they’d say, “Nah, I don’t want to be a fireman, it’s too dirty. I want to be a lawyer.”
Good for them! Why shouldn’t they want something bigger. I’d want that for my own kids, so why not these kids too? Everyone should aspire.
Another reason is that while many College educated whites with family on the FDNY take the test, if for nothing else, but a back-up plan, most college educated blacks are recruited far more highly and the result is that far fewer College educated blacks are competing on these exams.
That’s a FACT that is simply often overlooked.
The City of NY and the FDNY have spent tens of millions of dollars recruiting “minorities,” but these recruitment drives almost always fall short and the people who work those drives usually come away saying the same things, “We can’t compete for the College educated minorities, because they simply have so many other opportunities that are more attractive.”
Without saying it, the professional advocates seem to be saying, “We’d like to eliminate all those College educated whites from taking these exams.”
So instead of saying that, they make foolish claims of “stereotype threat” and other such inanities to make the case that “written exams discriminating against blacks.”
But that is not the only assault on the FDNY’s standards. Recently a women’s advocacy group has won a move to a “Pass/Fail” physical exam, so BOTH the written standards and the physical standards have been watered down.
These events are NOT “wins” for women or “minorities.” The new, lower standards actually stack the deck against the most highly qualified blacks and women, just as they do for the most qualified from any group, for just as high standards discriminate against the less skilled/qualified, lowered standards discriminate against the most highly skilled/qualified because they usually lead to some form of “lottery” among those deemed “minimally qualified.”
55. “Kendrick,
you are being unfair to me.
…
Thank you for assuming a racism on my part that does not exist.” – Heather in MD
After looking back over your initial comment, you’re correct that I had wrongly assumed that you supported affirmative action.
Unfortunately, that’s the extent of my error. Let’s review your comment:
18. “I probably would not have gotten into my college if I was not black
…
I am sure that they could have found an equally qualified white person and would have loved to have had them if they did not have to take me or someone like me.
…
once AA is gone I think that schools will not have a reason to admit EVEN qualified blacks (except for the sports teams). Why should they? Because they are fair and want to? Ha!“
You claimed both 1) that your college would have preferred to admit a white student in your place, and 2) that colleges would refuse to admit qualified black students if they were not legally constrained.
I doubt that 1 is true, but maybe you experienced real racism from the college administration while you attended and have a reason beyond your own assumptions to claim that they would not have admitted you.
2, on the other hand, is a general claim about hypothetical future actions of people you’ve never met, never read about, never heard about, and don’t know about. You claimed that “schools”, by which you probably mean “the white* administrators of most mainstream colleges” are and will remain prejudiced against blacks. You made a significant negative assumption about their character with no evidence or experience whatsoever. This makes you by definition a bigot. Furthermore, I conclude from your statement:
“I never said that I think all whites are racist but I honestly think that either they don’t care about black people one way or another or they hold some prejudices about blacks”
that you actually meant that they would be prejudiced against black people because they are white.*
That makes you not just a bigot [deleted]. You seem to think that just because you don’t claim to be inherently superior in body or mind you can’t be a racist. Instead you’re assuming a moral inferiority in white people at large. [deleted]
*Actually I suspect that a significant fraction of the people in these positions now are minorities, but don’t let that get in the way of your paranoid delusions.
Last month, a commenter prefaced her comments by saying her remarks may sound racist to some people. I prefaced my reply to her comments by saying, yes, her remarks did sound racist. LaShawn, you deleted my preface, saying you did not allow personal negative attacks on your blog. So I’m wondering what you think about Kendrick’s vitriolic criticism of Heather?
“That makes you not just a bigot but a racist.” That statement by Kendrick sure sounds like a personal attack on Heather to me. Did your rules change, LaShawn?
Didn’t see it. Thanks for pointing it out. – Admin
For what it is worth, Kendrick’s comments did not strike me as a personal attack, but rather an evaluation of a number of comments that painted an entire group of people in a negative light.
That is very different than the obnoxious tendency of many to call someone a racist for their policy positions (rejecting AA or wealth redistriubtion and equalization of outcome).
#55 Heather in MD states: “I do believe that AA has helped blacks in situations where they were qualified and the spot was held for them because they were black. It is not fair maybe but that is a far cry from UNQUALIFIED blacks getting a hand out.”
When Affirmative Action came on the scene, colleges, police departments, fire departments, public schools, etc. were pushed to commit to the opening of their doors. At first, Affirmative Action was aimed at a quasi quota system. If the police department had a choice between a qualified black and white, the job would go to the black. (This assuming that blacks were under represented.)
Soon, it was discovered that there was a shortage of qualified applicants. This was “rectified” by special training and mentoring for black applicants. In the case of many colleges, the admissions standards were lowered.
As “old shoes fit best”, I suspect that if colleges had not been pushed by Affirmative Action that many would have sailed blithely along with no (or a small) black student body.
But I also believe that Affirmative Action was a band-aid and the times and social consciousness have changed to the point that it is no longer useful.
Understand, however, that Affirmative Action is in direct contradiction of the 14th Amendment and always has been. From my point of view, it is not one our better ideas. Just because it has had many positive effects does not change the fact that it is a form of government sponsored racial discrimination.
Blacks need to look at themselves in the mirror and realize that the time has come to rid themselves of any stigma that may beset them because of Affirmative Action.
I can not believe that the United States of 2007 would ever return to the days of segregationist thinking.
I often have lunch in a joint that has moved on from being the redneck hangout it was years ago. My buddies, black and white, sit around with other good old boys who are black, white, Mexican and even gay. And we often take our women folk with us. We really like each other as fellow travelers and our differences are just that: unimportant differences.
I see this same scene played out all across the nation.
Helio;
I see the same scene played out in my home, among my friends, in my community, and across the nation as a whole, as well.
The problem that I see in jumping past racial schism, is that disparity of outcome is used as the sole metric for determining whether we are a racist society or not. Under such a rubric, it really doesn’t matter how far we have come in terms of ridding ourselves of racist attitudes, the disparities are used by many to demonstrate that we are still a society of oppressors.
This is enormously frustrating, particularly when much of the disparity is due to the high proportion of single mothers.
In fact, I think that the unremitting drumbeat of accusations is responsible for creating a great deal of hostility on both sides that simply would not exist if the “elite” had not determined that they were going to “teach folks how to be tolerant” rather than being satisfied with ensuring equal opportunity under the law.
On the one hand, the past does lead to the present and thus has a bearing upon the solution, but where does it end?
I have to agree with #55.. I dont believe wholly unqualified blacks got the nod.
I also think we no longer need this, we could have gotten rid of thse policies some 15-20 years ago.
I’d like to see affirmative action gone from the scene totally. I’d also like to see legacy admissions gone from the scene. I’m not so naive as to think the admissions process was a total meritocracy.
I remember when an Asian friend of mine was applying to graduate school in Computer Sci. at our local university, he was turned down. Here’s a guy with a 4.0, mulitlingual, just a genius. But, there were already too many Asians, needed more Whites. I’m waiting to see an Asian sue to fight these “White Privelege” programs also.
These (legacy and AA) policies are not based on achievement, but on some outside un-related characteristic of the applicant that has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to perform and graduate from that particular institution.
In my opinion, there are only two true meritocracies. Pro sports and Wall Street.
lukeNC;
TyrianPurple addresses the “myth of legacies” quite well in comment 41.
“When Affirmative Action came on the scene, colleges, police departments, fire departments, public schools, etc. were pushed to commit to the opening of their doors. At first, Affirmative Action was aimed at a quasi quota system. If the police department had a choice between a qualified black and white, the job would go to the black.” (Heather in MD)
Actually that’s NOT how those preferences worked.
In point of fact, there have ALWAYS been blacks (many) who were able to compete extremely effectively with members of any other group.
IN NYC’s Fire Dept (which is still over 99% male and 95% white) Reggie Julius and Augustus “Gus” Beekman, among others not only got on that job but competed on a number of promotional exams and did extremely well BEFORE there were “quotas” or “race-based preferences” for minorities.
Harvard University had admitted blacks LOOOONG before any race-based preferences existed – Dr. William Augustus Hinton (1883-1959), the first black physician to publish a textbook in America, was born in Chicago in 1883, attended the University of Kansas from 1900-1902 then transferred to Harvard, graduating Harvard Medical School in 1912. From 1921-1946 he taught bacteriology and immunology at Harvard before being promoted to clinical professor in 1949.
W E B Dubois attended Harvard University way back in in 1890, so AA didn’t “force Colleges or Municipal Services (Police & Fire Depts) to open their doors.”
What it did was create a segregated set of standards out of the wrong-headed belief that blacks couldn’t compete.
In NYC, back in the late 1980s one NYPD entrance exam had three separate passing grades, a 70 for whites & Asians, 65 for Hispanics and 60 for blacks.
Look, regardless of “disparate impact” (fewer members from one group passing an exam than from others) there is no justification for such a segregation of standards.
AA went way off the tracks when overreached to embrace every minority under the sun (except for Asians in colleges and white males in general), and began allowing those who had never known a day of discrimination benefit at the expense of a minority, in fact.
Americans, originally, could see the fairness of reaching out to those who historically were denied opportunities. But, “those who make their living exploiting race issues” and the elite got greedy, and expanded the recipient pool to 70% of the population and went way beyond equalizing opportunity and began embracing equalizing outcomes.
“Americans, originally, could see the fairness of reaching out to those who historically were denied opportunities.” (Jan)
That’s correct.
Disparate impact is an important issue, just not an excuse for a segregation of standards.
When I see disparate impact I wonder what caused it and that can’t be answered without first finding out all the existing reasons for that disparate impact.
It’s not enough to say, “Many blacks come from underperforming schools.”
The fact is, so do many whites, Asians and others.
Moreover, what good does lowering standards do for people who did not get a good basic education to begin with?
The standards ARE lowered for everyone, so it’s not as though those who’d outcompete them on higher standards won’t have the same advantage when the standards are lowered.
#71 JMK, it is I and not Heather in MD you quote.
Your reply:”Actually that’s NOT how those preferences worked(.)” is confusing to me, because that is precisely how they worked and the impetus behind the law.
Perhaps I should have noted that many police departments, fire departments, colleges, schools etc. throughout the country had a long, proud and successful history of integration of the races before the Affirmative Action laws.
However, Affirmative Action was the catalyst for rewriting the hiring and admission practices in many parts of country.
I am sure that we are saying the same thing, but the purposes and procedures were as I described them in #67. I had a hand in administering the requirements of Affirmative Action when it was in its infancy and regulatory case law was not yet established.
I might add that New York City has always been ahead of the curve in this area.
This is a minor point, but I do not want Heather MD to take the heat for my words.
I apologize for the misappelation, but AA didn’t actually “open doors,” given that American Colleges and Universities had a very long history of admitting black students, long before AA.
In NYC there were many high-achieving blacks who not only competed effectively for jobs in Municipal government, but excelled in Municipal workforces (Fire, Police, etc).
The “outreach and recruitment” end of AA ended early, in favor of more hard-and-fast “goals and timetables” (quotas and set-asides) and then onto a racial spoils system built on various preferences.
That’s the problem with the government’s ever accepting that expanded definition of AA, it made mere “disparate impact,” a very routine, actually ubiquitous occurance (no group is ever represented in any endeavor precisely in accordance with their percentage of the population) as “proof” of racial discrimination.
That remains that policy’s fatal flaw and the reason that it violates the concepts of both equality of opportunity (the right to compete on the same set of standards) and equality before the law (as it assigns different values to the discriminations suffered by different people).
I’m very late to this discussion. Frankly, as I read through all the comments, I was relieved that Kendrick took Heather in MD to task for her professed lack of racism (though I would have preferred he did it without resorting to words than needed to be deleted). She said:
“I never said that I think all whites are racist but I honestly think that either they don’t care about black people one way or another or they hold some prejudices about blacks based only on their impressions that are based upon racial stereotypes.”
and:
“I am against all types of discrimination but (and this is mean) I don’t think that whites give enough of a care about blacks to insure that QUALIFIED blacks will get into a university once AA ends.”
May I point out that most of the gatekeepers at today’s universities–the ones who will still be gatekeeping if/when AA ends–are the very same liberal proponents of AA. How exactly will admissions take such a tailspin?
La Shawn, the worst that can happen if AA ends is that Heather from MD is right. Stupid, ignorant, uncaring white people will try to shove black people to the back of the bus again and keep blacks out of their lily-white universites.
But it isn’t going to happen. Too much has changed, and white hearts aren’t as cold as Heather believes. Besides, if universities try to keep blacks out, somebody will file a lawsuit to rectify the situation.
“La Shawn, the worst that can happen if AA ends is that Heather from MD is right. Stupid, ignorant, uncaring white people will try to shove black people to the back of the bus again and keep blacks out of their lily-white universites.
“But it isn’t going to happen. Too much has changed, and white hearts aren’t as cold as Heather believes.” (skyepuppy)
A fair point. Without question THAT would be “the worst that could happen,” and of course it wouldn’t not only because “hearts aren’t as cold,” but because they may have never been as cold as many imagine (with regional distinctions of course) – Harvard, Yale and other major Universities were home to leading abolitionists well before the Civil War and nearly all those Universities had black graduates long before the turn of the last century.
Outreach, recruitment, even remedial help for those who may have a hard time meeting the minimum standards (for any number of reasons) are all good things, but perpetuating the myth that blacks can’t compete on a level playing field is a terrible thing to inflict on people, and that’s what preferences and set-asides do.
#75 JMK: “…..but AA didn’t actually “open doors,†given that American Colleges and Universities had a very long history of admitting black students, long before AA.”
Pardon me for being so hard headed, but perhaps you did not carefully read what I wrote.
I worked with several colleges that had no “very long history of admitting black students.” They admitted a few token blacks in the late 1960’s and dragged their heels at admitting more. I suppose you could say that their doors were “open” to black enrollment, but they certainly did not have an “open door” policy of admission.
Affirmative Action, despite the protestations to the contrary was initially pursued as a type of quota system. The Justice Department reviewed the college admissions and made particular note of low admission numbers. The lowering of admission standards was the result of colleges needing to round up a greater number of “qualified” applicants. The sword held over the head of the college was access to federal grants and funding.
I am making my final attempt at this. I am not reporting on what the books say, I am explaining what happened around me at the time. I was employed by several colleges to make recruitment raids on high school guidance departments and into black colleges to lure students into colleges that had to get their black enrollment up or face federal sanctions.
You need only look at the actions of George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Orville Faubus or Fritz Hollings to learn how open the doors really were in some areas of the country.
Just for fun, this is the scoring chart for UofM admissions. You need 100 points. Would you qualify?
link
Your point of reference is far different from mine, helio.
While the South had its Wallace’s, Maddox’s and Faubus’, neither the West nor the North did.
Schools like Berkely, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Rutgers and Northwestern were admitting qualified black applicants for a very long time prior to the Griggs Decision that ushered in Quotas and preferences.
The opposition to “taking ethnicity into account, as one of many parameters,” is about the weight that various institutions have assigned that single parameter.
Common sense would tell us that it should be a very minor one, while many Colleges took race/ethnicity and gave it an extremely high value – higher than SAT scored and GPA.
The problem’s never been over lokking at two very closely qualified applicants and choosing the one whose ethnic group is least represented, it was with schools cynically using the ability to use race/ethnicity to exempt some students from the barriers that many of the parameters (GPA and SAT scores) created.
It’s that policy of preferential treatment based on race that’s caused the furor.
I have so much to say about all this I don’t even have time to say it right now or I’ll be late to church. So I’ll have to come back at another time with my two cents. But I do want to say Bravo! I’ve been reading your blog for about a month, and am blown away by the quality of the interesting, insightful, informative posts! You go girl! You’re awesome! God Bless.
re: u of m scoring chart:
me-admitted to Michigan State Univ. (MSU) before AA – 117 pts. including 20 pts for being black.
Wife – admitted to MSU after AA – 122 pts including 20 pts for being black.
20 yr old daughter, junior at MSU – 121 including 20 pts for being black.
17 yr old daughter, high school senior admitted to about 16 colleges including 5 ranked in top 25, 133 pts including 20 pts for being black.
None of us applied to u of m.
1. Stacey –
You stated:
“Are you KIDDING? It IS a program specifically designed to admit less qualified blacks. Doh.”
Is this supposed to be an educated factual response, or just an emotional rant? I suppose you can always find someone more qualified than the next person. However, AA was designed to open doors to racial minorities and women who have historically been discriminated against. It lets universities and corporations know that they cannot have a systemic preference for white men in their admissions and hiring. To say that it was “designed” to let in less qualified Blacks appears to be a racist rant. That comment presupposes that there ALL white applicants are definitely and naturally more qualified than ALL Black applicants. It also assumes that grades are the ONLY aspects of a college application. That’s what makes these “reverse discrimination” lawsuits so ridiculous.
You also stated:
“And if you are offended that some believe that blacks think ‘I deserve this through no effort of my own other than my skinâ€, then perhaps you should stop advocating that you should get this because of nothing more than your skin.”
When did I advocate that? Must be another emotional response because I believe I “advocated” the opposite. That assumes that a Black woman picked up off the street get admitted to Harvard over a white student who has had straight As his whole life. That’s absurd! Ofcourse any applicant admitted to a University would have to be able to survive in the University environment. It kills me how White people complain about AA> It clearly shows their feelings of entitlement! “That Black person took MY spot!” It couldn’t be the spot of an Asian, Latino, Native American, or International student…No! The person could not have brought other things to the table besides the highest SAT score! No!
Opponents of AA only complain because it is one arena where their innate White Privilege cant give them a leg up.
Having grown up attending predominantly White schools from the age of 11, you’re not going to convince me that Whites have been harmed. I’ve seen so many freebies and open doors that Whites have been given simply because of the legacy they have in America.
And, on your other comment, I work in a corporation that deals heavily with government set-asides. The people who benefit from these programs are mainly women, not Blacks.
2. Scott- I am saying there would not be as many Black students because Universities would not have to admit them, and therefore, like in the workplace, when faced with a qualified white and a qualified Black, they would probably go with the white student, especially if he wouldn’t be a strain on the financial aid.
3. Jan – But, “those who make their living exploiting race issues†and the elite got greedy, and expanded the recipient pool to 70% of the population and went way beyond equalizing opportunity and began embracing equalizing outcomes. ”
Are you serious? White women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA.
4.
Nicole,
First, let me begin by thanking you SO much for accusing me of ‘emotional’and ‘racist’ ‘ranting’. I guess we can just leave that to others to judge.
Meanwhile, let me answer your questions about my response to your statement of “Why do we always assume that affirmative action leads to “less†qualified blacks being admitted? Maybe it’s our own prejudices”
I replied to that “It IS a program specifically designed to admit less qualified blacks.”
A. You speak about what AA was designed to do as if I had made some statement about that. I made no statements whatsoever about what AA WAS designed to do. My statement concerned what it IS designed to do.
B. My statement is true. It IS a program specifically designed to admit less qualified blacks.
C. You said: “That comment presupposes that there ALL white applicants are definitely and naturally more qualified than ALL Black applicants.”
You are going to have to explain this one to me.
In what way does the statement “It IS a program specifically designed to admit less qualified blacks” possibly presuppose “that there ALL white applicants are definitely and naturally more qualified than ALL Black applicants” ????
I said nothing about any such thing, which is no doubt due to the fact that I in no way believe any such thing. Nor is that in any way a necessary prerequisite to the statement I DID make.
Could it just be that you just ASSume that I am such a racist that I would think that NO blacks would be in universities if it were based on merit only? If so, that would be a reflection of YOUR prejudices about me as a white person rather than a reflection of any racism on MY part.
D. “It also assumes that grades are the ONLY aspects of a college application.”
Again, I have absolutely NO idea where you get these ideas from.
The statement “It IS a program specifically designed to admit less qualified blacks” has absolutely nothing to do with any specific one of the various criteria colleges use in the admission process other than the criteria about the color of the applicants skin.
The only one making assumptions here seems to be you. Are YOU assuming blacks in general fall behind on grades but not in other areas of criteria?
I *know* colleges use many criteria besides grades. I do NOT know what criteria blacks in general may fall behind on or in what criteria they may surge ahead.
I DO know, however, that somebody at Michigan felt it valid to bump up the overall score of someone like you by 20 points solely because of the color of your skin.
Like I said, “It IS a program specifically designed to admit less qualified blacks.”
D. Your next point was about my response to your statement in post 13. I said:
“And if you are offended that some believe that blacks think ‘I deserve this through no effort of my own other than my skinâ€, then perhaps you should stop advocating that you should get this because of nothing more than your skin â€
You asked me “When did I advocate that?”
Let me quote you:
“I happen to believe in policies that admit students based on race. ”
I hope that answers your question.
E. You say “Opponents of AA only complain because it is one arena where their innate White Privilege cant give them a leg up.”
I think I’ll let that one stand on its own. Wait..no I won’t. I feel compelled to make one small-ish point here. How is it that YOU dare accuse ME of racism in the same breath that you make a statement like that?
F. You go on to tell me “And, on your other comment, I work in a corporation that deals heavily with government set-asides. The people who benefit from these programs are mainly women, not Blacks.”
Let me assure you that I believe that to be just as wrong as racially based AA.
Nicole,
Now let me ask you a question. Why do you think affirmative action, such as the program that the Univ. of Michigan used, is NOT a program designed to admit those less qualified?
Explain to me why 20 points is added to the overall ’score’ of an applicant based on their race? The ’score’ is a numerical representation of the applicants overall qualifications.
An applicant with a lower ’score’ is “less qualified” than an applicant with a higher ’score’.
Are you seriously proposing that raising the score does not result in admitting those “less qualified”?? If so, I’d be interested in the explanation of how THAT works.
I see a lot of heat generated here. Let’s shed some light. Once and for all, when people say that AA used in universities, particularly U of M, is based on admitting lesser qualified blacks, they are NOT racist. They are telling the truth. Libeling people as racist for telling the truth might make some people feel better, but at the end of the day, the libelers do not have the truth on their side. Period.
From the Center for Equal Opportunity http://www.ceousa.org/pdfs/UM%20UGRAD%20final.pdf
Snip…
Snip…
That’s how it is. U of M does not deny this; they said it to me in black and white. When people question the competence of a black student in a university today, they are NOT racist. They are not throwing a tantrum. They are not lying. They have facts on their side, so if anything, they are using their common sense. They know that as a rule black students are held to lower standards. They know the students admitted by those lowered standards don’t do as well as everyone else. It becomes obvious right there in the classroom; there’s no hiding it. Racism is not about the facts, it’s about opinions regarding facts. So, If anyone is racist towards black people, it’s the people–white or black–who think that low standards are all that should ever be expected of black people. Otherwise, quit the libel.
What about the social, as opposed to legal, aspect of racial headcounting? One thing that drives me straight up the wall is the current sugary fawning by sycophantic white liberals over the fact that both head coaches in the Super Bowl will be black. Please. I need insulin.
Those two coaches got where they are by means of talent and results and guts. Those are the things we should be celebrating, not their skin color. To continue with the “ooh, isn’t this special” nonsense over their race, how about giving them the credit due to them for the things that really matter?
Oh, and by the way, there will be a black head coach loser in the Super Bowl, guaranteed. Are we supposed to feel the need to offer him a special program of some sort because he couldn’t make it to the top? Good grief.
“Those two coaches got where they are by means of talent and results and guts. Those are the things we should be celebrating, not their skin color. To continue with the “ooh, isn’t this special†nonsense over their race, how about giving them the credit due to them for the things that really matter?”
These guys were both affirmative action hires: it serves notice that “diversity” and “less qualified” are not synoymous. I.e. those syncophantic white liberals are supporting a policy that worked and has had laudatory results. Nothing wrong with that.
TVD
Who proposed the idea that ‘diversity’ and ‘less qualified’ are synonymous? I didn’t see it anywhere on this thread.
Changing your opponents argument to something they never said and then claiming them to be wrong is nothing less than a cheap shot and proves nothing. Arguing that something nobody said ‘is TOO wrong’ doesn’t mean a whole lot.
I could as easily say to you ‘TVD, you are wrong to suggest that all black people think whites owe them a living!’
Doesn’t mean a whole lot though, since you never said that, does it?
In addition, neither one of those guys were affirmative action hires. They certainly weren’t affirmative action hires in the sense that we have been using the term on this thread.
The NFL does not work that way. The NFL does not get to choose who each team hires. They did not decide that the NFL will have 2 (or however many) black head coaches in 2006. The owner of the team makes the choice. So to suggest that the NFL has determined that a certain percentage of the head coaches within the league will be any particular color is mistaken.
What I have heard is that the NFL does require owners to interview black candidates. They do NOT require that they are hired. And if you think someone who owns ONE team is going to risk that teams future and his investment on a candidate he thinks is not qualified, I don’t think you are being rational.
As redbeard said, “Those two coaches got where they are by means of talent and results and guts.”
To suggest otherwise is an insult to them.
Now, did the owners choose to hire them because they seemed about equally qualified as their competition and had the added ‘bonus’ of being black? I have no idea and could care less if they did. But that is NOT affirmative action as we are discussing it in this thread.
“Who proposed the idea that ‘diversity’ and ‘less qualified’ are synonymous? I didn’t see it anywhere on this thread.”
See #30: “Are you KIDDING? It IS a program specifically designed to admit less qualified blacks.”
This is referring to AA generally–the “in universities” qualifier was not added until further down.
“Changing your opponents argument to something they never said and then claiming them to be wrong is nothing less than a cheap shot and proves nothing. Arguing that something nobody said ‘is TOO wrong’ doesn’t mean a whole lot.”
Except that’s not what I did.
“What I have heard is that the NFL does require owners to interview black candidates. They do NOT require that they are hired. And if you think someone who owns ONE team is going to risk that teams future and his investment on a candidate he thinks is not qualified, I don’t think you are being rational.”
This is how affirmative action operates in corporations and universities–on a “race-plus” basis.
I don’t see a problem with that.
Sorry, #30=#38.
TVD,
You changed the term ‘affirmative action’ to ‘diversity’. They are not synonymous.
You say “This is referring to AA generally–the “in universities†qualifier was not added until further down”.
What are you talking about? This thread is ABOUT AA in universities! The statements I made (until my response to you, in which YOU changed the subject) was about AA in universities and was in response to posts about AA in universities.
Again, attempting to change my words and the context in which I made them is a cheap shot and proves nothing.
In addition, see the link on post 79. This is NOT a “race-plus” basis.
P.S. Even if you did not read the relevent posts and make sure you understood the context in which they were written before you replied, I don’t understand why you would A) change the term affirmative action to diversity or B)assume that the word ‘admit’ refers to corporate HIRES. Corporations do not ‘admit’ people. They hire them.
“This is how affirmative action operates in corporations and universities–on a “race-plus†basis.”
“I don’t see a problem with that.”
Here’s the problem with that – race/ethnicity/gender should ALL be value-neutral.
To argue that a black person’s race should be valued “positive” (more than other races) rationalizes the reverse as well, because all such policies are arbitrary and capricious.
#92:
Post 79 refers to a system U of M doesn’t use any more.
The post has included comments referring to civil service exams and the NYFD, as well as discussion of AA in business–the comments are not limited to universities, and it is inaccurate to say the post has been wholly about universities.
#93:
No poster on this thread draws a distinction b/w diversity and affirmative action–in fact, some of the comments play fast and loose with the distinction (see #59), so you introducing it late in the day doesn’t help any of your arguments.
As for the admit/hires distinction, fine. Way to clarify your original point. Kudos.
#94:
“Here’s the problem with that – race/ethnicity/gender should ALL be value-neutral.”
Oh? Has it ever been value-neutral, in your experience? I don’t think so, and that’s going back far before AA.
And if that is the goal, why is abolishing affirmative action the best means to accomplish that? Doesn’t making more black people middle-class bring us closer to a color-blind society, because one then will live and work with colleagues of different races?
Government can’t “make” people into middle class citizens, any more than a student can be “made” into a successful graduate. Those who arrive there do it themselves, through personal responsibility and hard work.
All AA guarantees is the dampening of the effort=reward formula, ultimately hurting the very goal it claims to champion.
“Government can’t “make†people into middle class citizens, any more than a student can be “made†into a successful graduate. Those who arrive there do it themselves, through personal responsibility and hard work.”
Sure, government alone can’t do that–but why, then, did affirmative action directly track the rise of the black middle class? Did black people suddenly become more personally responsible in the 60s-00s?
I could get behind that.
“What about the notion that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty? The black poverty rate was cut in half before affirmative action — and has barely changed since then. –Dr. Thomas Sowell
“What about the notion that blacks would not be able to get into colleges and universities without affirmative action? After group preferences and quotas were banned in California’s state universities, the number of black students in the University of California system has risen.” –Dr. Thomas Sowell
““What about the notion that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty? The black poverty rate was cut in half before affirmative action — and has barely changed since then.”
Substantially more black folks were poor at the beginning of that period (just post-reconstruction). It’s a flawed comparison–like comparing growth rates in a developing company to that of a mature company. Further, you might look at the inflation-adjusted income of blacks pre- and during affirmative action, which would be a much better gauge.
“What about the notion that blacks would not be able to get into colleges and universities without affirmative action? After group preferences and quotas were banned in California’s state universities, the number of black students in the University of California system has risen.â€
I wasn’t making the argument that blacks couldn’t get into colleges without affirmative action. I’m making the argument that it’s done more good than harm, and those results are impossible to deny on their face.
But if black admissions are up after AA was thrown out, how can you say that AA was in any way responsible for successes in admissions (let alone successes toward graduation) during its day?
“But if black admissions are up after AA was thrown out, how can you say that AA was in any way responsible for successes in admissions (let alone successes toward graduation) during its day?”
Er, because black admissions went up following the implementation of AA (and this is nationwide, not just in CA)
“Here’s the problem with that – race/ethnicity/gender should ALL be value-neutral.†(JMK)
Oh? Has it ever been value-neutral, in your experience? I don’t think so, and that’s going back far before AA.
And if that is the goal, why is abolishing affirmative action the best means to accomplish that? Doesn’t making more black people middle-class bring us closer to a color-blind society, because one then will live and work with colleagues of different races? (tvd)
YES! On any Civil Service exam where everyone is subject to the same standards – there race IS of neutral value.
Er, because black admissions went up following the implementation of AA (and this is nationwide, not just in CA) (tvd)
Black admissions did go up, but graduation rates went sharply down. Even in NYC where AA was bolstered by a failed and now defunct policy called “open admissions,” black graduatrion rates declined sharply after the advent of those policies.
I’m making the argument that it’s done more good than harm, and those results are impossible to deny on their face. – tvd
First of all, one cannot look at AA merely in terms of its impact upon black people because it encompasses a far wider reach of minority groups (When a wealthy Hispanic person who grew up in Timbuktu is accorded benefits over a poor white kid from Appalachia, there’s a problem with the width and breadth of the bloated notion of AA that we have ended up with).
Second, one cannot evaluate AA merely in terms of a positive effect on blacks because AA has been enormously divisive in this country, has cost untold billions of dollars that have been taken from hard working taxpayers, and has unfairly impacted segments of our society.
TVD,
Okay, I’ll give this one last shot.
Just because someone else mentioned civil service exams and the NYFD, that does NOT mean I did nor that the statement in the post I was responding to did. MY POST was NOT about that and the statement I made still stands true. Your futile attempt to insert them (as well as corporations) into the meaning of my words is just that – futile.
Your statement that “No poster on this thread draws a distinction b/w diversity and affirmative action” is patently untrue. When you FIRST brought up the word in relation to my post by attempting to substitute one for the other (in relation to MY post), I told you that when *I* refer to AA, I am NOT referring to diversity, as the two are not synonymous.
Furthermore, it just may be that no other poster made that distinction because A) that distinction has at no time been under discussion on this thread (ya think?) and, B)maybe no one else is obtuse enough to think they are synonymous.
Of course, I don’t think you are obtuse enough to think they are synonymous either. Otherwise why would it be so important to you to insist that my choice of one term actually means the other when clearly I did not use it?
So now you insist that the first time the word ‘diversity’ is used in relation to MY post, which is when YOU attempted to replace it for my choice of words, that at that moment it is TOOOO LATE for me to make distinctions. Are you kidding??
So you get to replace any word I use with the word of your choice (even though it does not mean the same thing), and at that very moment in time, when you chose to make the replacement in my words, it is officially TOO LATE for me to make any distinctions. You ARE funny!
Oh, by the way..when I said ‘government’, I did not mean ‘cheese’. And when I used the word ‘quote’, I was not referring to the “Bee Gees’. Also, for me, the word ‘action’ is not equivalent to the word ‘bunions’.
I do so hope I have clarified myself in a timely enough fashion for you on those particular words.
I’m just not sure how I’m going to find the time to make all of the other possible “distinctions” I may need to make in case you decide to substitute any more of my words. Especially since at the time of your ‘decision’ it is apparently TOO LATE for me to clarify your adjustments to my words.
Oh, and as to what started this: MY original statement, as I chose to word it, oddly enough is STILL true. Which, I suppose, is why you have led me on this wild goose chase to begin with.
“those who make their living exploiting race issues†and the elite got greedy, and expanded the recipient pool to 70% of the population and went way beyond equalizing opportunity and began embracing equalizing outcomes. †-Jan
Are you serious? White women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA.- Nicole
Nicole, “are you serious”? Please reread my statement again. Take as much time as you need…I was pointing out the very thing you seem to think that I missed which was that AA expanded to include 70% of our population. Included in the expanded definition would be women, including white women. The expanded definition has become so ridiculously vast that it has, in essence become exclusionary.
I would far rather that you respond to what I actually say than what you think I may have meant cuz you are scoring an f- in the presumptive department…
Comments on this entry are closed.