I welcome comments and disagreements, with me or with other commenters, but I do not welcome the increase in snide ad hominem attacks that have begun appearing here with increasing frequency. Be a vigorous as you’d like with your arguments, but please be civil or I will delete your comment.
UPDATE [23 Aug.]
Well, guys/gals, this isn’t quite working. Luckily, or not, my wife, daughter, and I have been traveling, mainly through the Republic of California, for the for the past week (although this time we stopped just shy of the native habitat of the exotic tribe of Bayareans), and as a result I haven’t been as attentive to this blog (or others) as I like to be. And as a further result, I read all fiftysomething comments to this request for increased civility at one rather pained sitting.
Since I remain displeased with the tone and non-responsive content of much of what has been appearing on comments here lately, this is a good time to recall the timeless and priceless comment of journalist A.J. Liebling: freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one. From now on I will exercise that freedom by deleting comments that contain what I regard as offensive ad hominem remarks, that are far longer than necessary, or that are not germane or responsive to the posts under which they appear. Since I have neither the time nor inclination to edit comments line by line for acceptability, the entire comment containing unacceptable content will be deleted. After a couple of such deletions that commenter will be blocked from future comments.
As for what is unacceptable, you’ll just have to trust my judgement, or not. But one thing I will say is unacceptable here is questioning the motives of others, as in the claim that those who oppose racial preferences do so because they want to keep blacks from succeeding or that those who support them do so because they are lazy and want free government handouts. Deal, that is, with arguments, not with the personal character of the people making them.
A grayer area, but one in which my decisions will of necessity be no less black and white, concerns relevance to the post being commented upon and length. I am providing (which takes some effort, if I do say so myself) a COMMENT section, not a free platform for long discussions of alternate (or, for that matter, similar) views of the world. Feel free to disagree (but briefly, please; same with agreement). Feel free to link to other sources that disagree. But if you feel the need to expound upon your disagreement, do so by including a link to your no doubt valuable exposition on your own blog and invite people to comment there.
I will no doubt be accused of censorship. My first response to that is, So? And my second is, So? See A.J. Liebling above. More seriously, and beyond the obvious points that I am not the government and I am not restricting anyone’s freedom of speech, the simple fact is that coming here and insulting most readers in order to provoke comment wars tends to suck up all the air in the comment section and changes the nature of what I intend to provide here, whether or not such wars have items of interest in them. There may be, probably should be, a place for such exchanges, but this isn’t it.
As mentioned initially, I’m traveling now, and will be for the next couple of weeks, so I may not be able to implement these new guidelines as quickly as I’d like, but they are no less real for that delay. I am, of course, willing to listen carefully to any responses (temperate, brief) to the above, which I suggest you post here, and it is even conceivable that I’ll change my mind. Stranger things have happened.
since you’re a “racist,”[1] john, it’s obvious that neither you nor your readers deserve a modicum of respect…
better get used to being text-based tarred & feathered on a regular basis.
[1] i.e., since you’ve the temerity to question the overarching moral & policy imbecility of contemporary pieties, affirmative action included
harmd was being crude and offensive, but he has a point. John, if you plan to attack Affirmative Action, you have to know you are attacking a lot of people’s livelihood, their bread and butter. I don’t appreciate it, and a lot of other people don’t appreciate it.
You’re talking about people’s families here.
Hey – you’re crushing my dissent, here!
Commie.
–John, if you plan to attack Affirmative Action, you have to know you are attacking a lot of people’s livelihood, their bread and butter. I don’t appreciate it, and a lot of other people don’t appreciate it.
You’re talking about people’s families here.–
Aye, there’s the rub, isn’t it?
However, if you go here, you’ll see where the Help Wanted will rise.
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001578.html
I was always raised to get skills which would provide a job. What do some parents say? Major in what you want, but minor in something that pays the bills????
Well, Akefa, that works both ways.
My wife is Filipino/black and I am white. AA takes food out of our mouths and gives it to you.
I’ve got a family, too.
What makes you more deserving. That you have black skin? What a crock!
I’m going to ask a question that should have been asked of you and Cobra long ago. Don’t you have any pride? Why are you moaning and crying like a child for a handout? Are you lazy? Are you addicted to scamming?
A man who will stoop to this kind of pleading for special consideration on the basis of his skin color is, in my estimation, a failure as a man.
Get some backbone. Quit whining. Your behavior is not that of a proud, self-sufficient man. Your endless demand for a handout shames you. Your insistence that your troubles are greater than those of other people is a lie. Develop some dignity and learn to live by some other means than these scam tactics.
Akefa,
Didn’t Jennifer Gratz also have a family and didn’t the race hustlers in Michigan take food off of her table and didnn’t the Supreme Court of the Land agree that the race hustlers at U. of Mich violate her civil rights by having a separate and unequal admission program.
Before you start whining about AA, please point out in the constitution where is allows the government to treat whites and blacks differently? If you find the provision, then you can start calling people racist.
Akefa,
When those who disagree with you don’t have the FACTS on their side, they will resort to low-brow tactics, like name-calling. I’ve found, that as a cartoonist, if you make somebody smile while you’re criticizing their viewpoints, they’ll think about what you’re trying to say, and not just blindly attack.
In that spirit, Superdestroyer, I did
a cartoon on the Jennifer Gratz case recently, and here’s the link.
http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/7-24/gratzvsbrady-STREAM.gif
John Rosenberg is absolutely right. There’s no need for bile or vitriol. There are individuals on this blog whom I’d love to meet in person over a beer and barbecue to discuss the issues.
Dissent is the spice that flavors the American entree.
Stephen,
You can play piano for me anytime, buddy.
-cobra
Sadly it all starts to look like the back seat of a car on a long trip, where you can’t tell which is worse, the kid who won’t stop picking on his sibling or the kid who won’t stop egging him on with passive aggressive snipes. Personally I think most weblogs aren’t appreciably improved by unmoderated comments sections, they just become miniature Usenets over time.
Cobra, somehow, I don
john,
do you now feel like a parent driving cross-country with the kids in the back seat saying “i’m not touching you, i’m not touching you” ?
Richard,
Thanks for the compliments on my art. In the case of this cartoon, I decided to run it as a collumn style instead of a straight cartoon. This was because the subject matter and material is too involved to limit to the one panel, one gag format. (And as you can tell from this blog, I love to write volumes!) I used Tom Brady as the example because he is the most famous member of the Michigan class that Jennifer Gratz would’ve been a part of. I also used the example of Tom Brady because he represents one of the 1400+ WHITE or ASIAN applicants with lower grades or test scores than Gratz who were accepted into the school. Tom Brady puts a REAL and FAMOUS face on that statistic. The fact that Tom Brady is indeed white makes the whole point of the insanity of Gratz’s lawsuit. By what POSSIBLE formula can she state that an “undeserving” minority took the “spot” she felt entitled to because of 20 “minority” bonus points, when 20 “athletic” bonus points was given to Tom Brady for being able to throw a football. Well, it’s simple. Jennifer Gratz and her benefactors KNEW that she could play on the racial animus against Affirmative Action a whole lot easier than a Title IX dispute over gender. Maybe I’m giving her too much credit anyway, because there are many people who didn’t even notice, or for that matter, find anything amiss about the 1400+ whites and Asians who got into Michigan with lower scores.
In the cartoon, I took the “positive” position on Jennifer, with the sarcastic notion that she really just wanted to get into Michigan, and that she would be upset to the point of litigation if ANY FACET of the Admissions Policy FAVORED someone with lower academic credentials.
I’m sure that there would be some trial lawyer out there willing to sue over it.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Buddy, you just simply aren’t getting it. Tom Brady got 20 points because he brought his ability to throw a football to the equation (regardless of whether you think this is a worthy skill–I happen to agree if you think it’s not). In contrast, the legion of accepted black students with lower credentials than Gratz brought only their black skin to the equation.
Honest question Cobra: Do you view racial discrimination as on par with academic or athletic discrimination in admissions? Is one any better or worse than another? And if not, would racial discrimination against blacks at Michigan meet with your principled approval as well?
Stuart,
We might find a point of agreement here. Not on the Gratz issue, however. As I pointed out, 1400+ whites and Asians with lower grades or scores got selected over Gratz. I used Tom Brady primarily because he was ONE of the 1400 and a nationally known figure. I also mention in the cartoon that there were minorities with HIGHER SCORES than Gratz that ALSO didn’t get accepted. My bone of contention with Gratz is that instead of looking at the entire admissions system, she decided that a “black face” took her spot, when in reality, Tom Brady could’ve.
We would definetly agree on athletics, Stu. It’s all about money, and we both know that Michigan wouldn’t pack that 107,000 seat stadium if they had Princeton’s academic requirements for athletes. Number two, I have YET to hear one complaint from Jennifer Gratz about the Fab Five, or other famous athletes that have NO WHERE NEAR the academic prowess. In fact, she’s on record as saying she LOVES Michigan football. Well, you can’t have it both ways.
If a person’s argument against Affirmative Action is that NOBODY should get ANY preference that’s not based upon qualifications, then there shouldn’t BE ANY CONSIDERATION. STONE COLD. ONLY grades and test scores across the board.
You won’t hear one booster, or alumni donor in America agree with that, Stuart. It’s all about the MONEY.
—Cobra
Cobra,
I typically don
I think Ms. Gratz just delivered the last best word on the matter; and as an aside, I would love to see more of her on this site.
Cobra, out of sheer masochism (or perhaps sadism to a reader), I am compelled to make one more point to your last comment:
You say, “If a person’s argument against Affirmative Action is that NOBODY should get ANY preference that’s not based upon qualifications, then there shouldn’t BE ANY CONSIDERATION. STONE COLD.”
Well, that’s actually not the argument against affirmative action. I believe the argument made by Jennifer Gratz and regularly here by John Rosenberg is that nobody should get any preferences based upon skin color.
Let me second the comment made by StuartT. I was just in the process of responding to Cobra about his tunnel vision when it comes to affirmative action, when Jennifer Granz, not surprisingly, said it much better than I could. Cobra cannot or will not understand the difference between admitting students based on their accomplishments and admitting students based on race.
Jennifer, welcome to the website. Hopefully you will continue to comment and give us the benefit of your insight in the future.
Be sure to check out …
… the excellent discussion going on at Discriminations. John Rosenberg actually wrote a post asking commentors to “keep it civil,” and surprisingly it turned into a superb discussion about affirmative action. Jennifer Gratz, the plaintiff in one of t…
I’m a little confused here…
First, Cobra is obviously an intelligent individual. I’m confused as to why exactly he argues for preference when it would seem that he doesn’t need it. This is the general quandry I have…if affirmative action applicants are so “qualified,” then why do they need extra points for an arbitrary characteristic?
Second, how exactly does Cobra know what Tom Brady’s academic credentials are? I’d like to see a source on this, because the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act should preclude anyone from knowing Tom Brady’s academic credentials…unless of course Brady willingly released this information, which is questionable. It would seem Cobra is fallaciously going by his statistic that 1400 whites an asians had low academic credentials, and Tom Brady is white, so presto!
Chad Pennington, another white quarterback, was a Rhodes Scholar finalist at Marshall. So I fail to see how we can just lump all athletes into the “poor academics” category.
Quick Hop Through the Blogroll
Airborne Combat Engineer discusses the New York Times’ Attack on the Swifties Jane Galt of Assymetrical Information on Democratic Dirty Pool and Ralph Nader Brain Shavings on Kerry’s lies about his military service Cici on the Glory of the Olympic
Cobra, you have not answered me.
You seem obsessively convinced that your troubles are greater than those of other people, solely based on the color of your skin.
This is a supreme form of arrogance. Why do you continue to live by this conviction? How do you know that the white guy you pass on the street is not suffering in ways that you cannot imagine?
And, I’m going to ask again. Why do you concern yourself so obsessively with racial vengeance? That seems to be the primary focus of your life. This has to be destroying you spiritually. Your answer, I gather, is that blacks have a special right to vengeance. Why?
I’ve heard the same complaint from the Irish, from the Russians… in fact from every racial group. The outlook you represent is a hopeless vendetta that ultimately is answered with violence.
I’m going to tell you again. You believe that you are making the lives of whites miserable in retaliation for perceived racial complaints. You are the one paying the price for holding onto this vendetta, and the price is huge. You are sacrificing your mental and spiritual health to carry on this vendetta.
I’m speaking as a friend when I advise you to ditch this vendetta and get on with your life. This obsession will destroy you.
Some one used the word “tunnel vision” to describe Cobra’s comic and arguments here. I think that characterizes the entire rationale of those who defend race preferences.
First, Cobra gets several facts wrong in his comic. He says the “Supreme Court sided with Michigan on this case,” using the example of Gratz. Had he been talking about Barbara Grutter, he’d be right. The Gratz case though was decided entirely in favor of the plaintiff and against Michigan.
Second, the entirety of Cobra’s argument reflects a statistical reality of probability that Michigan made as one of its defenses. Essentially, it is a theory of hiding constitutional violations behind indiscreet probability. The argument is this – the admissions program “guarantees” admission to no one, it only changes the probability that different individuals will be admitted or not based on a variety of different characteristics. If you change one characteristic, there is still no guarantee that you will be admitted. In the legal system, the most prominent theory of liability is “causation.” Causation requires a finite, or binary, definite proof that event X lead to damage Y. There can be no causation within the U-Michigan system, and they actually, and openly used this argument as a defense. In the real world, even at the quantum level, however, the binary definition of causation breaks down. The court saw through this in one way; and in another way (in Grutter) the court actually mandated a less discreet form of discrimination (back to the quantum analogy, they actually said, if it can be measured, it is illegal; if it can’t, its not). In Jennifer’s case though, the decreased probability (but not the certainty) of her admission based skin-color was precisely measurable because of the grid-systems used. In Barb’s case, because no preferences were given numerically (it was all in the heads of law school admissions officers), the University was allowed to get away with it. This was the Supreme Court’s version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” or “we’ll look the other way if the evidence isn’t too clear.”
The reason the defense of “affirmative action”, as Cobra defines it, is so “tunnel visioned,” is that it assumes that race preferences and affirmative action are the same thing. There are however types of “affirmative action,” based on non-arbitrary characteristics, that could be acceptable. If one wanted to base assistance on socio-economic conditions, engage in outreach to expand the entire applicant pool, or focusing resources and improvements on the lowest achieving K-12 schools (all of these have been done in California, which now has higher minority admissions than before 1996), they wouldn’t be objectionable. These are still forms of “affirmative action,” and they statistically benefit minorities more to the extent that minorities are more likely to fit into those need categories, but they also benefit any and all individuals from any race that also face the same conditions. The “affirmative” action that is being taken here though isn’t race-based, it based upon a measurable need.
Cobra,
Nice that a person arguing for social justice would result to racist stereotypes in protraying Ms. Gratz. Her parents were blue collar non-college graduates who lived a very blue collar neighborhood. Yet the U. of Michigan admitted the children of white collar, colleged educated black parents with lower SAT scores and lower academic achievement.
Obviously the error in Ms. Gratz application was not claiming to be black or hispanic (you may want to look up the story in Washington Post on AA at the Naval Academy to see how the children of elites have figured out how to play the game).
On top of the racist policies (separate and unequal), the University of Michigan would still expect Ms. Gratz to have a higher GPA and higher GRE scores even to be admitted to U.of Michigan graduate or professional programs even though she attended UM-Dearborn than the black students that were admitted to U. of Michigan under AA programs.
Also, I am awaiting your cartoon on where in the constitution it says that the government can discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity. And why your looking, maybe you can point out where “compelling interest” is mentioned in the constitution.?
Now why does the sweet prose of “Akefa”, also known as “Akeefa”, seem so familiar to me? You are well-known in the blogosphere under a variety of aliases, but I’d know that writing style in the dark, dear.
Oh boy! Well now, it looks like you folks have left me with a lot of responses to make. It might take me a while to get to all of you, so keep checking back.
The first person I want to address, is Ms. Jennifer Gratz herself. It’s not everyday I get to hold a discussion with a national celebrity, so I’m going to take advantage of that right now.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I hope my depiction did you justice. I’m not going to debate with you the merits of the Supreme Court case. You’ve probably heard every single argument against it from lawyers and social scientists far above my pay grade. I’m simply going to respond to what you said to me in your post, and give you my constitutionally protected opinion, as always, supported with information.
Ms. Gratz writes:
>>>I’ve never said that I was entitled to a spot at Michigan and therefore never say that anyone took “my” spot.http://www.detnews.com/2000/schools/0011/12/a01-147225.htm
The Peabody Award winning Dateline, “A Question of Fairness”, records your interview with Tom Brokaw:
Cobra,
Practically the entire post was an ad hominem argument: first against Jennifer Gratz, and then against Ward Connerly.
Take a look at your quotes below:
Now, you might want to call that kind of behavior, looking at the sum of your own statements, as something other than a sense of
Cobra,
Sometimes it is wiser to remain silent and let others assume you are a fool, than to speak and erase all doubt.
That last comment was bad.
Vish,
Ms. Jennifer Gratz had problems with my cartoon. She was the focus of the cartoon. Of COURSE the argument I’m going to make with her is going to be about her statements and actions. She’s a public figure, who is right now, actively trying to destroy Affirmative Action in one of the most segregated states in America–Michigan.
She has made herself, with her nationwide interviews, high-powered attorneys, right winged conservative financial backing and now, executive directorship with Ward Connerly’s Michigan Civil Right’s Initiative, subject to as much criticism, investigation, and scrutiny as Julian Bond, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, and anybody else who voluntarily projects themselves into the public eye.
I don’t believe I was rude, out of line, or impolite in my post. I didn’t use personal insults. I didn’t accuse her of illegality. In fact, I agreed with her on two out of the three main issues she brought up to me, because I’m not afraid to admit when I’ve made mistakes.
I simply used her on the record public statements to forward my theory on her motivations.
Ward Connerly was mentioned because essentially, he’s her employer now, and their mission is something I totally disagree with.
That’s my opinion. Jennifer Gratz has her opinion, too. We both have the right to express them in a civil manner. I think that was accomplished in this discussion.
–Cobra
Those Center for Individual Rights lawyers sure trained you well.
The trouble with you Cobra is that when you can
Cobra,
Your real problem is that you don’t address the issues of those who see things differently than you.
In your post you said you post “link upon link of articles detailing the ongoing discrimination against African Americans TODAY, from housing discrimination, voter disenfranchisement, police profiling, redlining, segregation, hiring discrimination, ad infinitum. The vast majority of responses I get from the anti-affirmative action crowd is either outright denial, disbelief, disdain, accusations of anti-white racism, or a lecture about why I should get over it, and rise above.”
Actually, almost all of this is completely false. Primarily you’re told the following:
Every type of discrimination you’ve mentioned is against the law. If someone engaged in such activities there is a mechanism for redress. That mechanism is not to allow government protected racism. SCOTUS has made this abundantly clear, and it makes perfect sense since your proposed solution neither punishes the guilty nor redresses the grievance.
I’m not sure why you think letting a random black student into Michigan makes up for a random black illegally denied a job. Additionally, if you have evidence of such racism I suggest you take it to the many institutions in this country, such as the EEOC and ACLU, specifically designed to investigate and prosecute/litigate such actions.
Your “link upon link” to material documenting racism in America is irrelevant. The solution you propose doesn’t solve the problem of racism in any way. The racism you are concerned about needs an enforcement solution. This issue is a separate policy matter.
You take special offense at those who point out racial discrimination against whites without making sufficient effort to note the opposite. I must say I personally don’t feel the need to do so. As previously noted, every type of racism you mention is already illegal. As a society we have already spoken on the matter of white on black racism such that it is encapsulated in our laws. So to me it looks like you’re upset we’re not still fighting the last generation’s war.
Lastly, I have never seen anyone deny that white on black racism exists. If someone has said that I disagree and I suspect most or all people who post here would as well. But the disdain you sense isn’t directed at the existence of racism, it’s directed at the non-sequitur that government protected racism against whites is a proper redress for illegal racism against blacks.
–I call Connerly a racial profiteer, because the man has made himself a MILLIONAIRE through
Cobra,
I am still waiting for you to show where the US Constitution allows for separate and unequal standards based upon race.
Unequal used to be called Jim Crow and the Supreme Court and the legistatures outlawed it. Now it is called AA or “diversity” and black throughout the US fall all over themselves trying to justify it.
I’m open to the possibility that the race-based Michigan system is (legality aside) not the right instrument for undoing the damage of slavery and discriminiation, and I suspect that class-based AA is a better mechanism for similar goals. I’m moreover willing to agree that Michigan’s defense was disingenuous in the extreme, trying to hold simultaneously the claims that the increment for minorities was small but its absence would result in a sharp drop in the number admitted. (The former clause is a falsehood.)
Having said that, those of you who don’t think that living in the USA as black is still a very different experiencec from living as white are living in a dream world. How many housing-redlining, driving-while-black, and blatant employment discrimination scandals (against minorities) does it take before this message gets through? Is it better than 1950? Sure.
Similarly, I don’t see why it isn’t the case that both Ward Connerly and Jesse Jackson are making out like bandits for race reasons.
And last, apropos of vendettas: my mom, Anne Frank, and Martin Luther King Jr. would all be the same age today (my mother, I’m glad to say, is alive). I don’t see why the civil rights struggle should be any less central to the black experience today than the Holocaust is to Jews, and I don’t hear Jewish interest in the Holocaust mentioned as a vendetta very much.
The Holocaust is central to the Jewish experience? What was central to the Jewish experience in the millenia before the Holocaust happened?
Andrew, what’s AA for? Is it to overcome the supposed desire of every white person in power to discriminate against black people? If so, AA at U of M is clearly unnecessary, since those people went all the way to the SC to try to keep their racial preferences.
I suggest you go back and read mj’s post again. He/she makes some very good points.
Having said that, those of you who don’t think that living in the USA as black is still a very different experience from living as white are living in a dream world.
One question. How would you know?
I don’t see why the civil rights struggle should be any less central to the black experience today than the Holocaust is to Jews, and I don’t hear Jewish interest in the Holocaust mentioned as a vendetta very much.
Excuse, me? Central to my experience? Are you kidding me? As far as I know there are no Nazis in power in the US (except for Bush, of course), so why should it be central to my experience? Tell me, every time a waiter is rude to you or gives you bad service do you think he must be a Nazi who is persecuting you? Well, I don’t. It is central to your experience only if you see racism or anti-Semitism in every interaction you have with other people. If that is the case then you have a problem that needs the help of a psychiatrist.
Mr Nieporent, I’m not going to insult you by telling you some of my best friends are black. But one of my bridge partners is (he’s also a PhD), and he’s got plenty of driving-while-black stories. (And, at least when I’m in his car, a beat up old compact, he seems like a pretty normal driver.) Evidence of, say, racial steering has been verified in courts of law. I repeat, what planet are you on?
As far as Jews and the Holocaust, maybe you’re familiar with the efforts, ongoing to this day, to obtain reparations for surviving victims. I note they are meeting with some success, while analagous demands by American blacks are met with opposition, even derision. Is it only the distance in time? I’m not so sure.
Don’t you recognize that the Holocaust has become one of the central totems of our culture? I wonder just how many Holocaust Museums are in the United States now—and how they compare in size and breadth to museums devoted to the Civil Rights Movement that, unlike the Holocaust, took place in this country.
I’m still missing the link from (a), the black experience is different from the white experience to (b), government must engage in race based discrimination to rectify it.
As with so many topics these days, one side of the argument seems to believe that the existence of a problem justifies whatever solution they design without regard to its effectiveness. Furthermore, effectiveness questions are treated as a denial of the issue.
All the racism previously mentioned has separate remedies via the legal system. The problems with minority achievement are not solveable through preferences. Any successful remedy will have to at least address the fact that an outrageous percentage of minority children attend lousy schools. It will also have to address other non-governmental factors as well, such as the proportion of minorities who believe athletics are the path to success rather than academics.
There are two things racial preference proponents need to realize. First, preferences to improve minority university attendance is a ham-handed waste of time that in no way adresses any of the issues. It’s superficial window dressing. The small number of people who graduate with slighter more prestigious degrees aren’t going to dramatically improve minority achievement. The only goal achieved will be the university’s ability to prove its liberal bona-fides.
Secondly, concurrent with its complete failure to address the root problems, you are creating another problem which is very serious. If minority university degrees come to be regarded as worthless by employers, minorities in this country are going yearn for the good old days (today, not JC). If that happens the path up is going to be ten times steeper.
Letting a small number of people through the system with degrees from UM instead of MSU isn’t worth the damage it will cause. Not to the whites unfairly treated, but to future generations of minorities.
Thanks, Cobra. One thousand Ward Connerly essays cannot possibly capture the moral bankruptcy of AA nearly as well as any particular paragraph of any of your posts. My only concern is that in reality you are a white supremicist having a big chuckle at our expense.
Wow, I feel like I am in a soap opera called
Good stuff, Richard. I had actually been wondering when Andrew would sniff the air above his burrow and shamble on over for a bite from this thread. I’d be careful though–he has lots of black friends, at least one of which holds a PhD and drives a beat up old compact.
Though as much as I hate to admit it, he is onto something here. Specifically, these racist cops who while away their days stopping black motorists for no other reason and then issuing “driving-while-black” citations. They do issue citations, don’t they? Otherwise all these “victims” would just be engaged in speculation. Then again, I usually scream “racism!” at every single one of life’s annoyances as well, so I can see where they are coming from.
But back to my point. If these cops are anything like me, i.e. working 10 hour days, caring for aged and ailing parents, and raising small children, you might imagine that they have little time and energy to plan and execute a program of systematic oppression against blacks. Well, despite these hurdles, whites have to sacrifice and just make the time.
If it means alientated friends, fatherless children, and a foundering career, so be it. I expect all whites to put aside their personal lives and aspirations, and spend at least a couple hours a day in the hard work of racial oppression. You may see no personal benefit to this wasteful endeavor, though at least it will help maintain the world-view of people like Andrew and Cobra.
I think there’s a real irony in all this.
If anyone ought to feel burdened by their identity, it’s conservative christians. I get hassled incessantly by people I don’t even know. I’ve had people call me up and tell me I was a huge bigot. All this because they found out I supported Bush.
I think there’s a very bigoted mindset on the part of some liberals, especially those that attend college right now. Anyone that opposes Affirmative Action is a racist. Anyone that argues that the glass ceiling is largely a myth using logic and statistical data is attacked as a misygonist (sic?), and the attacker doesn’t bother to answer the argument presented.
If you’re a conservative, you are most certainly homophobic, racist, and chauvinist. And let’s not forget a nazi.
With this debate everything just sickens me. One side sits here and tries to argue for ideas, and the other resorts to ad hominem attacks and conspiracy theories. This is the kind of crap that conservatives put up with all the time, and it has to stop. It’s becoming a new kind of bigotry.
And one more thing. Let’s hear some real explanations on these stories of pervaent racism. Take so-called Driving While Black? Does it exist? Perhaps. If you found a specific policy of profiling blacks on I-95, for example, which is apparently a DWB hotspot, then show it. Otherwise, you’ve got nothing. I’m not going to listen to statistics that say blacks are the majority of those stopped on I-95, because THAT PROVES NOTHING ABOUT INTENT. This is what kills me. The same with Affirmative Action. Statistics, in this respect, do nothing to prove causation or intent.
I talked with someone once about their Driving While Black experience. In a sly, hate-filled speech, the girl told me that she was stopped one time simply because she was black. I asked, “How could you tell?” And she kept talking about statistics, about the white man that pulled her over, etc. And I repeated myself, “But really, how do you know WHY he stopped you?” I further asked if we exclude all the stops involving black cops and black drivers from her statistical claims. She had no answer to this. I asked if, in her specific case, the cop used any derogatory terms or did anything that remotely indicated racism on the point of the cop. Begrudgingly, she admitted that nothing like that had occured. Finally, the clincher…I asked, “Did you receive a ticket?” And she had, for speeding. After further questioning, she admitted that she was over the speed limit. But this was illegitimate – because there were others driving faster that should have been pulled over.
It all came down to that. You know how many stories I’ve heard (and been involved in) where the driver was pulled over despite others going faster. At least, in this particular instance, we were able to deconstruct the fallacious claim to a simple thing THAT ALL PEOPLE FACE.
I don’t deny that racism is not perpetrated by individuals on others, but I deny that it is done on some sort of organized, massive scale. Further, I chide all those that “use their race as a shield”, as Thomas Sowell put it.
driving while black is one of the biggest red herrings in the US today. It is based purely on anecdotal evidcence that basically uses the idea that there are more white cops than black cops.
The real question is how did not police tell the driver was black from behind at night and with tinted windows? They cannot.
When a study was conducted on the NJ turnpike, it was determined that the number of miles above the speed limit is a fairly good proxy for race. Yet the NAACP aruged: how could the researchers throught radar cameras tell the race of the drivers? Yet, somehow the police can just tell through the tinted windows.
Oh, Cobra, via Bros. Judd:
With debate over the 2000 election still raging, thousands of people illegally register in both New York City and Florida, which could swing an election. (RUSS BUETTNER, 8/21/04, NY DAILY NEWS)
With debate over the 2000 election still raging, thousands of people illegally register in both New York City and Florida, which could swing an election.
Some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both the city and Florida, a shocking finding that exposes both states to potential abuses that could alter the outcome of elections, a Daily News investigation shows.
Registering in two places is illegal in both states, but the massive snowbird scandal goes undetected because election officials don’t check rolls across state lines.
The finding is even more stunning given the pivotal role Florida played in the 2000 presidential election, when a margin there of 537 votes tipped a victory to George W. Bush.
Go there and find out the margin.
Let me take a deep, cleansing breath, first.
Cobra:
Do you ever actually read the links which you prolifically post here? In all honesty, I usually don’t. Though just now I did. I’ll get straight to the conclusion: they don’t help your case in the slightest.
From Link #1 in the Washington Post, I excerpt in relevant part as follows:
“What differentiates Honda is a policy that increases the markup for the least creditworthy customers, the Cohen study found. Unlike other lenders, Honda increased interest rates by 3.5 percentage points for the least creditworthy customers, while markups for more creditworthy customers were limited to 2 percentage points.
That policy increased the racial disparities because a higher proportion of minorities fall in the lower credit tier of car purchasers, said Stuart T. Rossman, director of litigation for the National Consumer Law Center, one of the groups representing black borrowers.”
Did you spend one moment digesting this statement, or did you immediately regurgitate the usual “racist!” gruel? The plaintiffs’ OWN ATTORNEY says that Honda only charged more to the least creditworthy customers, not blacks. Welcome to lending 101. The “racism” came about because blacks make up a larger percentage of the least creditworthy. This may be unfortunate for blacks with poor credit (and whites with poor credit– but who gives a rat’s fat behind about them?), though it certainly wouldn’t effect blacks with strong credit, and is in no realm of comprehension “racist.” Furthermore, it shouldn’t be necessary to state the obvious that neither blacks nor anyone else is under any compulsion to finance their vehicles on the lot.
The second lending related link you post doesn’t even bother to describe the finance methodology used so all you have is a group of blacks shaking down a business Jesse Jackson style. Yawn, what else is new?
Two more points:
1) Just because a suit is filed does not indicate there is one whit of merit to the complaint.
2) Racial discrepancy does not equate to racism–but this fundamental fact is not going to reach you, I know. But taking your logic, I may consider filing suit against the NBA. If we did a statistical analysis of pro basketball’s player hiring practices, we would have a “slam dunk” case for rampant pro-black racial discrimination. Or would you like to to discuss the number of white, Asian, and Hispanic basketballers in relation to their population figures? Yeah, I might shake down the NBA for Allen Iverson’s crib and find myself chillin with a fat spliff in no time.
It tells us something that even the brightest and best-informed must resort to ad hominem against the anti-affirmative action. It can only mean that no rational argument is available for the proponents of racial-patronage quota placeholding, imposed by mere aggression. This last point is what is so carefully left out of all discussions of the government’s racial policies; it requires aggression, and the mere mention of this fact is sufficient to discredit the claim to moral respectability, which is implicitly made by the pro-quotas people.
Stu,
C’mon partner. You think all there is on lending discrimination against minorities is contained in the two cases I linked here on this blog? I was up to five pages in that post already. How many MORE links do you need? There are too many for even ME to post, Stu, and too many for you to dismiss out of hand.
I didn’t even touch on job discrimination against minorities in that post. It would’ve added at least three more pages in just a basic overview. There are too many studies. Too many scientific surveys.
Nothin’ but love for ya,
–Cobra
Cobra
We still missed the explanation of how people who were undeniably discriminated against are compensated by discriminating against a third party for the benefit of a fourth party.
Cobra,
First off, as a general comment, you need to shorten your posts a bit and use logical analysis and argumentation a bit more. Your posts are becoming way too long (and way too repetitive) to sift through, although I managed to get through the last one just barely. Simply having a deluge of links does not make a case.
In all this time, you have relied on exactly what I said you would: the effects and not the cause. All your nice statistics are meaningless without knowing causation — and none of these statistics do anything to tell us THE CAUSE of the effects you state.
For example, the study you cite on Driving While Black does nothing to support your claim, namely that the cause of the prevalence of tickets to blacks must be because of unfair or unwarranted racial discrimination on the part of police, seemingly on conspiratorial proportions.
To get painfully specific your own words say that the study showed that tickets involving moving violations (i.e. speeding, DUI, etc.) were distributed evenly, yet tickets for non-moving violations (i.e. having expired tags or an expired driver’s license) were dealt out unevenly upon the races – your implication being racism.
Under this rationale, am I to conclude that cops aren’t racist when it comes to speeding, but they are racist when it comes to expired licenses? Furthermore, why is it your implication that evenhandedness is a sign of a lack of racism? Evenhandness would imply a disproportionate number of whites receiving tickets, since whites make up a much greater proportion of the population.
The study you cite leaves me with one of two conclusions, each possible in some respect: either the cops were racist in handing out non-moving violations, or more blacks tend to be guilty of non-moving violations. I really have no conclusion that can be reached from the evidence you present — evidence which proves nothing on causation.
You still fail to cover the question of intent, and that bothers me. If all this racism is so prevalent, surely you could show some sign of intent; but nothing – not a single shred of evidence as to the intent of anyone that has perpetrated this so-called racism.
Your rant has gone into dangerous territory. Just as you say there are those alive today that had to live under overtly racist days (and do not think that I don’t sympathize with that), I am left to say that there are those in this world that NEVER EVER perpetrated any of that racism. On the one hand, you don’t want to lump people into groups, but on the other hand you look to exact revenge on whites — regardless of their individual actions — as a matter of government policy.
In the past few years we had a really tremendous opportunity to bite this racism crap in the butt. I am a member of a generation that is (or perhaps was) overwhelmingly unconcerned with race, having been taught it wrong to judge someone on anything other than the content of their character. Up until I was 18, I never thought about or considered someone’s race when looking at them. But the politics of race pushed by you and those like you has kept reconciliation from us and has kept this disease alive.
I just don’t know what to say about your poor attitude. Do you know how many people deal with crap from others all their life? Do you know how many times I was made fun of because of my Irish and Italian lineage? Do you know what it’s like to be picked on your entire childhood because of your weight? Sure, I was harassed a lot. I suffered through REAL hatred. But I just ignored those idiots.
There’s something you have to ask yourself: is America institutionally hostile to blacks? If it is, then how can you explain abolition, the civil rights movement, and modern day affirmative action. All of these things were significantly aided — and almost certainly were not possible — without the support of whites.
If we can’t trust the people to be non-discriminatory, and yet the government is made up of the people, then how is it that we can trust the government to be non-discriminatory?
You need to bury the hatchet and move on. This vitriol is becoming ridiculous.
Alright, I’m done with this thread for the night. Now I’m going to go give myself papercuts across my eyes.
john,
You have a well decorated website
i guess and that is the reason why you got these many responses.
cobra,
honestly,I think I had heard your arguments before. Let me offer these
few observations /questions ?
Should we give a preference for
admission to the3 university the grandson of Simon Wiesenthal over the grandson of the camp commandant at Auschwitz, even if Wiesenthal’s grandson
got lower grades and SAT scores than the
grandson of the camp commandant? Should we give a university admissions preference to the son of Bill Cosby even if his son had lower SAT scores and grades than the poor descendant of a white slaveowner? Cosby’s son was later killed by a Romanian immigrant.I think you know as to who Wiesenthal is, his entire family perished in the Nazi terror and he devoted the rest of his life to hunting Nazi murderers like Eichmann. I generally view that all preferences with the exception of income preferences as generally the same and favoring mainly the rich and the middle class. Someone made a comment here about Princeton athletes. Princeton 2 years ago had about 22 percent of its entering class admitted thru athletic preferences according to one source. Blacks may benefit from athletic preferences in U of M’s football program, but whites generally benefit more from athletic preferences in the Ivies and the privates than blacks. The members of Harvard’s lacrosse, tennis, ice hockey, swimming, rowing , fencing etc. teams are overwhelmingly white and wealthy. It is easy to understand why, most inner city kids do not have the money to pay for tennis or swimming lessons. As I said b4, preferences of any kind save income preferences are generally discriminatory. However, one might say that athletic preferences are a bit more acceptable than legacy alumni preferences. At least athlethes have to sweat out and work hard to justify a preference for them while alumni legacy depend on the money of their parents to justify a preference for them. I don’t have time right now to discuss the other points made by other posters in regards to this particular post, however nothing will ever justify race preferences be it slavery, voter disenfranchisement, insults or total disrespect. Great wrongs cannot be made right by another wrong.
Goodness me, Cobra, I am the one and only Stu. Your “Stu” of recent posts is, I believe, StuartT.
While I am here, I must note that one cannot be polite, accurate or fair without acknowledging that by pronounced negative example, you have proven (once again) in your series of posts that brevity is the soul of wit.
It seems a pity that someone so obviously bright and endearingly mischievous, is content to eschew intellectual vigor (and, ultimately, wisdom) for the juvenile pleasure of sticking it to the Man.
And, one must note with sadness, how unfortunate it must be to have a fine mind burdened with (and threatened by) intellectual laziness.
If you are able to suppress your puerile urge to preen, you may well become a man who commands respect and whose opinions count.
Cobra,
Someone here made a comment about Tom Brady and the Rhodes scholarship. Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey was admitted to Princeton with a SAT score of less than 1000 and he got a Rhodes scholarship. I am therefore of the opinion that the Rhodes scholarship applications committee is less interested on your SAT score compared to your grades in college and your extracurricular activities in college. Furthermore, I suspect that they are more interested in your extracurricular activities in college rather than your college grades. Therefore Tom Brady’s score has no relevance in this discussion. With regards to your claim that about 1440 whites and Asians were admitted to Ann Arbor with lower SAT scores than Gratz,let me offer my view of college admissions data. Unless you can lead me to a website that actually says this, then I am not inclined to believe you. I am basing this statement from actual admission data I had seen ,both from websites and actual paper reports. The admissions data offered by harvard, princeton or stanford are generally worthless to me ,for they fail to give me a truly accurate picture of the admissions process in those schools. These private schools like many other private schools will not give you data as detailed as the one that Berkeley and other public schools will provide for very obvious reasons. I generally regard the admissions process on the undergraduate level at the Ivies and Stanford as unfair and undemocratic. The admissions process in the Ivies and Standord is basically a fraud and a con game.If the Ivies and Stanford will publish admissions data as detailed and as accurate as Berkeley does, then they will be damned in the eyes of the public. The reasons for this are obvious. I forgot the URL link offhand, I suggest however that you type ” OSR Berkeley ” in your Google
or any other search engine to read the Berkeley data. If anyone thinks that the race preferences system at UM – Ann Arbor is bad, then the system of preferences in the Ivies and Stanford are far worse. I read this Berkeley data and my conclusion is this. We can start with statistical data that we already know. From various sources like the College Board, we know that the average SAT scores of Asians from 40k dollars households are equal or higher than the average SAT scores of blacks who come from households with average incomes of 70k dollars. The same comparison can be made for whites who come from households with average yearly income of 50k dollars versus blacks who come from households with average yearly income of 70k dollars.
You get the picture, I don’t have to go any further. In every SAT score range for Berkeley freshman year applicants, be it 900 – 1000 SAT, 1000- 1100 SAT, 1300 – 1400 SAT etc., blacks and Mexican – Americans have higher admission rates compared to whites and Asians having the same SAT score ranges.
In other words, if the SAT score of an
Asian Berkeley applicant scoring between 1200 – 1300 SAT will have a lower admissions rate on the average compared to a black or a Mexican – American who scores in the same SAT score range on the average. I made the same observation in the other SAT score ranges. This is something also true in the case of whites. The average Asian Berkeley appicant who scores between 1200 -1300 SAT comes from a lower economic background than a black
Berkeley applicant who scored in the same range in the SAT. I could also say the same thing about Mexican – Americans. Only one thing comes to mind
in this kind of situation and it is called ” race preferences “.
MJ writes
I don’t claim one must draw such a link. What I object to is a conversation where one side assumes (1) bigotry against blacks vanished somewhere around 1964 and (2) the effects of centuries of maltreatment of black Americans could not possibly have had longstanding deleterious effects and moreover if they did, it is no longer anyone’s business.
Cobra,
I was the the one who made that 10:13 AM post. Let me repeat something that I said in that post to make it more clear. An Asian Berkeley applicant
who scores between the SAT range of 1200-1300 SAT on the average has a lower
admission rate than a black Berkeley applicant who scores in the same SAT score range. That is also true for the other SAT score ranges.
Andrew:
I don’t understand your position. Are you saying you’re not interested in race preferences, but only in discussing the existence of racism? Or are you saying despite the fact that preferences don’t redress discrimination you’re for them anyway?
Via Real Clear Politics:
On May 17, three days after Dyer leaked the FDLE letter clearing him of any criminal wrongdoing to the Orlando Sentinel, Ken Mulvaney’s brother and his former campaign manager showed up at the FDLE office in Orlando with the 42 sworn affidavits they had collected alleging that Ezzie Thomas mishandled absentee ballots.
Based on that evidence, Orange County State Attorney Lawson Lamar, who Herbert fails to mention is both a Democrat and a longtime ally of Buddy Dyer, asked the FDLE to reopen the investigation.
On Friday I spoke with Jeff Billman, the reporter from the Orlando Weekly who wrote this detailed account of the matter. Jeff, who described himself and his paper to me as “pretty liberal” – has spoken to most all the principals in the case, including Ezzie Thomas. He said Herbert’s claims are absolutely ridiculous and he’s currrently writing a rebuttal to them now. We’ll post it as soon as it’s available.
One last thing: Billman said that Joe Egan, one of the lawyers representing Ezzie Thomas (and the firefighters union) has been shopping this “voter suppression” story around for a while now. But because the claim is so outlandish (not to mention irresponsible), nobody had been willing to take the bait until Bob Herbert came along.
Egan couldn’t have found a better possible surrogate for the story. Herbert hates George W. Bush so much and is so intent on portraying Republicans as racist that he has no problem willfully misleading his readers as to the facts of this case.
seems to me like affirmative action is nothing but America accepting the fact that we’re racist. AA is itself inherently racist, because people are being chosen and rejected purely on the basis of race.
Cobra, I’m going to have to say the obvious.
You are a raging, virulent racist.
A raging, virulent black racist is just as bad as a raging, virulent white racist. Both are capable of putting together verbose arguments to explain their racism. Your greatest conceit is that there is, somehow, a difference between your terrible, sinful racism, and the terrible, sinful racism of a white racist. There is no difference, except in your imagination.
You have no argument but your racism.
You are a racist through and through, Cobra. And, no, being black doesn’t excuse you.
Andrew is a modern day Lamarckian. He believes that blacks inherent the effects of centuries of maltreatment. By the way, Andrew, if Blacks can be affected by centuries of mistreatment, shouldn
>>>How have we managed to overcome our history or persecution when anti-Semitism not only still exists, but is getting more virulent by the day?
Cobra, I suppose it depends what you call “today’s society.” Anti-Semitic vandalism is widespread, though a lot more common in Europe than here. You may have heard of the torching of a Jewish community center and soup kitchen in Paris yesterday. Desecrations of synagogues and Jewish cemeteries seem to be pretty common in Europe, less so here. But there have been serious nastinesses — I don’t mean just outright lynchings like that of Yankel Rosenbaum (that’s thankfully uncommon), but harassment and vandalism on a considerable scale in many places. If I had a pile of links I’d post them; I think Meryl Yourish (www.yourish.com) probably knows as much about the subject as anyone, so do check there if you want to follow this up.
But anyway, it’s beyond question that Jews have been persecuted and discriminated against in the US; it’s also beyond question that ethnic Asians have suffered terrible travails in the US. (I’m not talking about the Japanese internment camps, even; read some of Mark Twain’s San Francisco journalism on the SF Chinese population and its treatment by the white population, if you want to understand the West Coast’s answer to the South in the bigotry department.)
Nothing either group experienced compares to slavery and afterwards Jim Crow, though in the case of the California Chinese the latter is a tough call. But if a leg up ought to be given to those who suffered, why not to these? Obviously because they’re “overrepresented” already.
Yes, of course, many Asian-Americans are recent immigrants or their children. Many Latinos are also recent immigrants or their children, and that objection isn’t made. I can’t understand why a Chinese immigrant shouldn’t get a boost for being a member of a minority still subject to racism, historically ill-treated here, and facing the barrier of a second language, when a Mexican immigrant gets just such boosts.
Cobra,
Forgot this; sorry.
And please indicate who the PERPETRATORS of this anti-semitism is, for the purpose of clarity.
That would vary. I could swear that I heard on NPR this morning that an Islamic group had actually claimed credit for the latest anti-Jewish outrage in Paris, but I can’t find any trace of that at the NYT (which credits it to “Neo-Nazis,” presumably because the perpetrators decorated the scene with swastikas) or elsewhere, yet.
Cobra,
Are you every going to explain how separate and unequal treatment by the government based upon race is currently permitted by the constitution or are you just going to keep playing the victim card?
I guess since you cannot answer such a simple question, you know the answer is that AA just is not only immoral but unconstitutional.
Michelle,
Thank you for the answers. I knew about the evils of anti-semitism in the US and around the world. It is vile and despicable, having been occuring since biblical times. My challenge wasn’t actually to YOU. I wanted to hear my detractors explain what anti-semitism THEY feel exists, and cite examples. You can see from this thread, that no matter how many instances of racism I will document, it’s irrelevant to many in here.
Superdestroyer,
Your answer is very simple.
Article I, Section II, Clause 3 of the US Constitution reads:
“Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
In other words, Native Americans didn’t count, and “others” (re: Black slaves) were 3/5ths human.
So right from the start, the fix was in for non-white male landowners. It was written in 1787. The Constitution was interpreted by white judges to justify “seperate and unequal treatment by the government” for 176 years,(America’s only 228 years old) until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which many white conservatives fought and still fight against). It is an amendable document.
So if you think it’s not possible for racial preferances to exist under the Constitution, you don’t need to ask ME that question. You need to ask the Founding Fathers and their progeny in the ruling class, as they didn’t have a problem doing it.
–Cobra
Cobra,
I wonder if you could answer a question that’s long puzzled me, since you seem to have read over the studies about anti-Black lending bias a lot more thoroughly than I have. Some on the Right have argued that, if lenders really are biased against Blacks — that is, if they really are turning down a Black applicant with identical credit history, net worth, income, &c. to a white applicant they would accept — then the Black default rate ought to be below the white default rate. I confess that that makes perfect sense to me — make the standards more stringent and the default rate ought to be lower, other things being equal. But the claim is that you don’t actually find that; that white and Black default rates are pretty well identical even in cases where discrimination against Black applicants is alleged. Have you any information about this?
Well for a start, we have Louis Farrakhan, David Duke and Al Sharpton (of blood sucking Jews fame) and Cynthia McKinney. We then have all of the International Answer community and the leaders of ISM (you can look up the names if you think it is important), etc. Internationally we have Usama Bin Laden (you may of heard of him) as well as the leaders of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Libya, just to name a few.
But, as usual, you are missing the point. I was not trying to get into a contest with you (actually the question was addressed to Andrew) to determine who is the most persecuted group. What I was trying to do was to explain why we shouldn
Mr. Nieporent, unless there’s a new system where we inherit wealth from the previous generation by lot, real-world family economics has a lot of Lamarckianism in it. You don’t think poverty tends to correlate from one generation to the next? Of course you do, in which case the effects of economic discrimination will persist after it is no longer permissible de jure (leave alone when it actually ends de facto).
The question why Jews have overcome discrimination better than blacks is a good one, and I would suggest as potential factors: (1) much less legal discrimination in the USA in such key areas as educational access, (2) greater ability to “pass” if desired, (3) arrival in the USA with greater capital , both economic and social, than the African slaves did. And are you, I wonder, opposed to monetary reparations given to Jews for the anti-Semitic outrages of the Holocaust?
First, I’d like to address what this was all about to begin with…I feel guilty, myself, for not sticking to what these comments were supposed to be about.
John, you give us a venue to sound off on important issues, and for that I thank you. I most certainly respect you and your desire to control your blog in the way that you see fit, and I most certainly will take into consideration your concerns on comments.
Second, Cobra, you need to do some simple research into the historical implications of the 3/5ths clause of the Constitution. Would you still contend that “the fix was in” if you discovered that the South (you know, that part of the country that had slaves) was the one pushing for slaves to can’t as a whole person in the census? Open a history text.
Correction: The above should read “count” not “can’t.”
Andrew, just for the hell of it, what if the comparison is not of Jews and Blacks but of the children of Mexican immigrants and the children of Vietnamese immigrants? Is there any obvious reason that one of these groups should get a leg up and not the other?
I really think that the proponents of AA have got to decide what it is they want. Is it compensation for past wrongs? Is it “diversity”? Is it “representation”? I was just reading an article in a newish classical-music magazine, Muso, that takes it as given that the underrepresentation of Black and Latino players in symphony orchestras is a bad thing. The overrepresentation of Asian-American players might or might not be a bad thing too; but you can’t find out from the article, in which the only three racial categories in this country are Black, Latino, and white.
Sorry. That was to Andrew Lazarus, not Andrew Connors; I forgot that there were two of you in there ;-)
Andrew, I just had an epiphany. You are right. I should get reparations for the Holocaust. $10 million sounds about fine. Was I in a concentration camp? No, but why should that matter. Of course I am still waiting for my reparations for my 400 years in slavery. You haven
Well, this has been been fun and, occasionally, instructive. From now on, however, in keeping with my newly announced (see UPDATE to this post) Comment policy, please restrict your comments to this post to comments ON this post, i.e., my request, now a decision, to limit comments to all posts to discussion that is civil (no ad hominem criticisms), germane to that post, and of reasonable length.
I was hesitant to do this, because as all these comments indicate there is clearly a desire, and possibly even a need, for some sort of free-fire zone where anything goes in heated exchanges for and against racial preference and about race generally. I do not mean to denigrate such verbal carpet bombing, but neither do I think the comment section of this blog is the proper venue for it. So, please, limit future comments to this post to comments about the comment policy announced here.
[Added a few minutes later]
Which is not to say all the comments here, taken together, have not been revealing. In attempting to extract something useful from them that can be useful as we, if you’ll pardon the expression, move on, let me suggest that many of them speak past, rather than to, their opponents, and they do so repeatedly making the same two points (one on each side):
Since I myself am in the 2b group, let me further suggest (that is a euphemism) that it is not necessary to post long, linked arguments (to other posts in the future; not here!) that discrimination still exists, that race matters. It does; it does. But the existence of racial discrimination does not justify a remedy of racial discrimination, at least not to anyone who believes that racial discrimination is wrong in principle.
Per my UPDATE and immediately preceding comment, I have deleted all the comments that were posted after my comment. None were themselves unacceptable, but this thread has been going on long enough here and has become repetitive. There will, I trust, be other posts to which you can add similar comments, but please do keep my recent requests in mind.
The post as 2:06 AM was made by Leo Cruz. What I really intended to say to Cobra was hat ” I have no way of verifying that 1440 or 2000 non -whites who got higher grades or SAT scores than Miss Gratz were denied admission to Ann Arbor for the simple reason that there is no website or research paper that will actually verify that data ” . This is in contrast to the situation at Berkeley, where I can verify their admissions data thru their website.
hey folks,
nice discussion group you’ve got here!
i thought it was quite interesting to see one of you draw a parallel between Jim Crow and Affirmative Action- that’s the first time i’ve ever seen it done on one of these groups. Anyway, i have two totally random questions to start with:
1)with regards to college/grad school admissions, do you think the current state of the job market may have something to do with the level of competiveness in admissions,
2)how many of you are involved, have been involved in, or would allow yourselves to be involved in a serious interracial relationship with a black person?
thanx in advance for answering my questions!
Bj
hey folks,
nice discussion group you’ve got here!
i thought it was quite interesting to see one of you draw a parallel between Jim Crow and Affirmative Action- that’s the first time i’ve ever seen it done on one of these groups. Anyway, i have two totally random questions to start with:
1)with regards to college/grad school admissions, do you think the current state of the job market may have something to do with the level of competiveness in admissions,
2)how many of you are involved, have been involved in, or would allow yourselves to be involved in a serious interracial relationship with a black person?
thanx in advance for answering my questions!
Bj
hey folks,
nice discussion group you’ve got here!
i thought it was quite interesting to see one of you draw a parallel between Jim Crow and Affirmative Action- that’s the first time i’ve ever seen it done on one of these groups. Anyway, i have two totally random questions to start with:
1)with regards to college/grad school admissions, do you think the current state of the job market may have something to do with the level of competiveness in admissions,
2)how many of you are involved, have been involved in, or would allow yourselves to be involved in a serious interracial relationship with a black person?
thanx in advance for answering my questions!
Björn