Although the young person who wrote the following no doubt thinks of herself as a beneficiary of affirmative action, I think of her as one of its victims.
The following appeared a few days ago as a comment on one of my old posts, and I reprint it here because I think it is worth bringing to light and no one cruises old, archived posts for new comments. I have omitted the author’s name/email here, although they do appear on the original comment. Here it is in its entirety:
My name is —- —— and I am 17 years old. I am also African-American. I the provided information suppose to discourage or encourage blacks from attending prestigious schools? From what I have read, you are trying to say that affirmative action is a wrong thing, in which it obviously is not. I fit were not for affirmative action, we wouldn’t see black doctors,lawyers,judges,senators,or blacks in the SupremeCourt. How dare you try to put black people down and tell them that they are not good enough for competitive schools! Whatr are you trying to say? That we should leave competitive schools and allow only whites to attend? When did a B in college become a sign of failure? I will attent Univeristy of Pennsylvania and wil not allow this trash to interfere with that. It is a conspiracy against black people to tell us that we would never be able to succeed in competitive schools. You are justy trying to cover the fact that you guys hate affirmative action because you are unwilling to see black people accomplish higher things. But guess what? We will succeed! I wonder why you guyws never included American Indians or Spanish. Why only blacks? And it is funny that you guys don’t see that Indians and Chinese do better than white people in college. You guys aren’t that smart either.Stupid Fools.
I find this almost unspeakably sad. Ignore the typing/spelling and grammar. All of us are careless and sloppy at least some of the time online, and many of us (I prominently include myself here) commit typos, spelling mistakes, and grammatical lapses online that, we would like to think, we do not do in real life, i.e., on paper. In addition, it is also quite possible that English is not the native language of this young author. (See here and here for recent criticisms of Ivy League schools for giving too many of their affirmative action preferences to foreign students.) And, although it would be easy to make fun of Penn here, I’m sure the lengths to which it goes to meet its “diversity” goals are no more absurd than those at comparable institutions.
Alas, this comment speaks all too eloquently for itself, and there is no need for me to point out what I regard as its obvious flaws and contradictions. I don’t really mind the personal criticism (I oppose affirmative action because I want blacks excluded from good schools, I want to see them fail, etc.). The really sad thing here is that this person, like so many other defenders of racial preferences who ought to know better, assumes so easily that the only reason anyone could want all people treated without regard to their race is a racist desire to repress blacks.
Insofar as this assumption has gained traction, it would appear that we really do have “two Americas”: a traditional one built on the belief that everyone has a right to be treated “without regard” to race, religion, ethnicity; and another, newer one that has adopted the multicultural principle that fairness requires dispensing benefits and burdens on the basis of race.
It’s so refreshing to hear someone write about the hypocracy of affirmative action pronents. Why is Morehouse college allowed to exist, but other school are sued for phantom racial discrimination. The people who allege racial bias are often those who are the most “racist.” By racist I mean they support special treatment for one race at the expense of another race. Example: Morehouse is 99% black and blacks want to keep it that way for the benefits that come from segregated learning while simultaneously blacks are trying to take deserving whites out of top schools in favor of the benefits of integrating blacks into the school.
I mean “alleged benefits”
I think the divide is a basic political one not particularly tied to the issue of affirmative action. Are there many people who believe in limited government but support affirmative action? Or many others who believe in legislating solutions yet are opposed to affirmative action?
The student poster is working from a belief that government is a limitless tool to be used for the betterment of society. Politics is simply a series of squabbles and compromises over which societal woes will be addressed with the vast funding and punitive pressure of government. From such a standpoint, the only reasons someone would oppose affirmative action would be bigotry or not understanding the severity of the problem. Hence the typical exchange:
I’m opposed to affirmative action and/or hate crime laws.
Oh, you’re a racist.
No, I’m not a racist.
Then let me explain the situation to you. [Cites numerous studies of employment discrimination, income disparity, representation within the higher tiers of government and business, etc.]
I don’t dispute those findings. I just don’t believe that addressing societal injustices is the purpose of government.
[Long pause] Oh, so you’re a racist.
You can’t really argue this issue with someone who begins from a fundamentally different place, unless you want to stick to a narrow discussion of whether or not affirmative action actually solves what it’s supposed to.
When my son was applying for universities, after boarding school in the UK, this was one of the things that had my stomach clenched. The knot got tighter as he started looking at schools like Brown, Columbia and NYU.
So, he ends up at Penn.
The poster does not (yet) understand that admitting lesser qualified persons of particular grievance groups (and bending over backwards to pass them through) has the effect of devaluing the degrees of all members of the groups.
Example? Maureen Dowd blasted the opinion filed by Justice Thomas in one of the AA cases, to the effect that AA created a perception of lack of qualifications on the part of all members of the benefitted groups. Dowd dismissed the opinion because it was from the affirmative action justice. In other words, in attacking him, she proved the very point he was making.
Nels,
You make an excellent point. Both in the analysis and conclusion. Although I would probably put “social injustices” squarely within quotes.
The people who support the weight of government to right supposed wrongs rarely (no, make that never) do so on a wholesale basis. Rather, they are quite selective in their outrage.
White “overrepresentation” is a crisis. Black “overrepresentation?” That’s “diversity.”
Every time i see a comment like the one in this post, i, too, am upset, but for reasons that i assume are different than most readers of this blog.
As a black female who is a staunch opponent of AA and quotas, i find myself in the unenviable position of preparing to apply to law school with less than stellar undergraduate grades. Naturally, i want to attend one of the best schools in the nation, but my measly 3.2 GPA is decidedly not on par with other applicants who want to go to, say, Harvard or Stanford Law. And though i do have a rather reasonable excuse for my grades being so low, i’ll know that if i get into one of these schools, the fact that i am black will have played a major role.
How am i supposed to reconcile myself to the fact that i will be a beneficiary of a program that i detest? I feel that when this happens (for it surely will), i will have lost the moral high ground from which i could denounce AA and be just as bad as the person who wrote that comment.
I just felt like writing about this because i have never seen my particular point of view discussed anywhere although i’m bombarded with the comments of people who feel differently.
JLF:
You pose an interesting dilemma and I admire your thoughtfulness in doing so. You’ll probably receive better advice from, well, darn near anyone; but for the very little it’s worth, here’s mine:
Go to law school at the most prestiguous institution in which you are accepted–AA or no AA. Work hard. Earn high grades–grades that will have nothing to do with your race. After graduation, accept the best position you can find. And then keep working hard. Proove anyone who doubts you wrong. Realize that the only one who can “keep you down” is you. Build a reputation of sound work ethic, intelligence, and legal savy–you’ll soon find yourself in heavy demand.
Finally, if you feel the calling, go into politics. This is where you can translate your personal passions into government policy. Never let anyone say that you can’t speak on the issue because you were a beneficiary. This is squid ink. I attended college on a full academic scholarship. Though it didn’t take a semester to learn that many others without financial support were well my intellectual superiors. Yet I didn’t consider for a moment renouncing my scholarship. I submitted an application, I was awarded the scholarship, and I ran with the opportunity. And whether or not I was the best of the best (I’ll end the mystery, I was not), I always have and will believe in the virtue of assessing individual merit foremost. You can too.
You certainly go forward with my best wishes.
I guess this kid never heard of Thurgood Marshall, who engineered the death of Jim Corw in this country by his brilliant legal work with the NAACP . He was not the beneficiary of affirmative action (quite the opposite), but is generally regarded as the greatest Supreme Court advocate of his generation (indeed, of the middle third of the 20th Century — and he argued Brown v. Board against John W, Davis, generally considered to be the greatest advocate of HIS generation and of the first third of the century).
It wouldn’t be the greatest argument to imply that the best black school has to be worse than the worst white school, and to do so on the basis of a study involving dolls. The girls might not have liked the supposedly identical dolls, which differed only in being darker-colored. These would have looked phony to the girls; real blacks are not just like whites with a deep suntan, and no other differences. It isn’t clear that the court wouldn’t have already decided the matter, before any arguments were offered.
Private universities like Stanford and Bryn Mawr admit people for 1 reason only , and it is to help the universityor school survive. Stanford for example will set a qouta of 8 % for the the freshman class at Stanford for blacks for the simple reason that it does not want to be accused of being racist. That is also true for Bryn Mawr ( which means ” high hill ” in Welsh ). It does not matter whether the qouta at Bryn Mawr is 4 % or 5 % for blacks as long as there is a certain percentage of blacks at Bryn Mawr. The reason is the same, it does not want to be accused of being racist towards blacks . Stanford will set up a qouta for the children of alumni at 12% or 14% of the freshman class because it needs the money of the alumni to pay for student longues, residence halls, manicured lawns that will be enjoyed by the mostly wealthy and middle class students of Stanford.
The alumni donations which are nothing but bribes, payola or payoffs or whatever you want to call them will also help pay for the costs of educating smart students who do not have enough money to pay for the costs of tuition and board at Stanford or Bryn Mawr. These smart students in turn will help raise the AVERAGE SAT SCORE of the entire entering freshman class at Stanfurd ( deliberate mispelling ). A high average
SAT score for the entering freshman class of Stanford will in turn attract
many wealthy people and alumni to send their mediocre children to Stanford and hence create greater willingness to donatemoney or donations ( which are nothing but bribes ) to Stanford. After all, human nature being what it is, parents want their children to be perceived as intelligent even if they are mediocre. Just take the example of the Bush and Kennedy families. Students also want to be perceived as intelligent. Do you the see the lay of the land now, John and Jessie, huh? Alumni legacy preferences bring out the worst in human nature. And the admissions preferences of the private schools bring out the worst in human nature. Just take a look at
Margaret Bass. She scored a score of 1220 SAT
and graduated from Groton , a pricey boarding school back East. There are several thousand other people who apply Stanford with higher SATs who are rejected. A Korean classmate of hers at Groton with a SAT score of 1560 was rejected by STanford. If you do not want to believe me John about the abominable treatment of Asians in the
Ivies and the privates. Let me tell you this story. There were 70 Asian students with a SAT score above 1400 applied to Berkeley from the spring 2004 class of Arcadia high school in California. 48 of them were accepted and 22 were rejected. About 17 Asian students who scored above 1400 SAT from the same class at Arcadia applied to Harvard for its fall 2004 freshman class, only 1 was accepted. That student declined
to attend Harvard as was every student that was admitted to Penn, Columbia, Brown and Yale from that class for that year. Sure being a member of the wealthy Bass family of Texas and having a father as the chairman of the board of trustees at Stanford helped Margaret Bass get admitted at Stanford. You can see by now that any admissions decisions made by Stanford to accept a student in its freshman class is driven by pure, self -serving self – interest and not by delusionary nonsense of passing the wisdom of the ages to young people.
John,
I think it’s a mistake to ignore the gross grammatical and spelling mistakes in this comment. Even further, the total lack of any sort of logical argumentation leaves you wondering how this person will ever manage to graduate from the University of Pennsylvania. When all the warrants of your argument rest on ad hominem attacks, that’s not good.
Frankly, I think it’s sad that this person is blind to the fact that their writing and thinking skills seem, from all the evidence we have, to be well below average. And yet, given the right teachers, this student may very well graduate, and those teachers will help keep those blinders on.
On the other hand, I think there’s a very high chance that this student will fail to graduate. I’ve seen it all too often at UVA — I’ve seen black students that were unable to maintain a 2.0 or better in REMEDIAL CLASSES. I’ve also seen professors overlook gross gaps in grammar, spelling, and logic in papers written by minority students.
While Penn has every right to admit whoever they want (as a private school), I’ll be sure to think twice when I meet someone that holds a degree from the University of Pennsylvania.
leo cruz wrote:
Private universities like Stanford and Bryn Mawr admit people for 1 reason only , and it is to help the universityor school survive. Stanford for example will set a qouta of 8 % for the the freshman class at Stanford for blacks for the simple reason that it does not want to be accused of being racist. […]
—
Oh the irony.
It’s astounding that today people say things like this seriously.
Rich
Rich ,
I don’t have time to talk with you right now,
but I can see that you are very gullible and very naive about the the true nature of the admissions process at private schools like Stanford or Bryn
Mawr. I already delivered an e-mail to John about
what you said. I hope he posts it. Stanford, Penn or Harvard are businesses even if they pretend to be otherewise. There is no difference between Stanford or Penn or Bryn Mawr and the now defunct
Mustang Ranch brothel in Carson, Nevada. They are
both run as businesses. Talk to you later. And don’t ever say again that ” in this day and age there are still people who say astounding things that Stanford……… you do not know what you are talking about….. too bad you were not able to read my posts in the NYT.
JLF,
Beleive it or not, I actually agree with Stuart on this one. If a good school accepts you, walk in SMILING. Study hard, excell and don’t you dare feel guilty. America is NOT and has NEVER been a fair and even handed meritocracy. Though there are many here and elsewhere in the anti-affirmative action movement who may look at you as a minority and “question” your qualifications to do anything, you can’t yourself assume that every “majority” (ie. white) person you see on campus is somehow MORE qualified than you.
There is statistical evidence available that puts THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of students’ academic integrity into account.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/04/05/highschool.cheating/index.html
But you won’t hear any mention of that here, or from the anti-affirmative action types.
I probably won’t change your mind on your stance against Affirmative Action, but JLF…don’t make the mistake of elevating the privileged majority to some paragon of virtue and intellect that you must aspire to emulate. Be the best person you can be for your OWN SAKE, not as some goal to placate the intrinsic biases others may have.
–Cobra
leo cruz wrote:
Rich ,
I don’t have time to talk with you right now,
but I can see that you are very gullible and very naive about the the true nature of the admissions process at private schools like Stanford or Bryn
—
I understand this…
“Stanford for example will set a qouta of 8 % for the the freshman class at Stanford for blacks for the simple reason that it does not want to be accused of being racist.”
Apparently you do not. Not only is the irony lost on you, so, apparently is the deliberate clear racism that Stanford apparently thinks makes them non-racist. I don’t think I can explain this to you if you can’t see it already.
BTW, quotas have been declared unconstitutional, but Afformative Racism advocates don’t think whites have or should have Constitutional or Civil rights anyway.
Rich
Cobra:
Unfortunately, we really don’t agree at all on this. I advised her to make the most of her opportunities, while you exhort her to stick it to Whitey. One of these mindsets is pure poison–and from her stated position, she appears to know which.
Furthermore, I would have offered the exact same statement to a white student. I doubt you would say the same.
Stuart,
How is telling somebody to do their best, and not feel ashamed or unworthy “sticking it to Whitey?”
–Cobra
Cobra:
Telling someone to do their best and not feel ashamed is praiseworthy. However, draping it in(very)thinly-veiled anti-white rhetoric is not. For example, 1)”America is NOT and has NEVER been a fair and even handed meritocracy” and 2)”don’t make the mistake of elevating the privileged majority to some paragon of virtue and intellect.” In both instances the presumption of white malice hangs heavy. If I have presumed too much, I apologize.
Although not perfect, America is the fairest meritocracy in the history of human civilization. That’s probably one of the reasons why blacks all over the world are clamoring to get in and not out of the country. To the extent that the contrary is true, I would say that America WAS not a fair meritocracy because Democrats 50 years ago insisted on discrimination against blacks. America IS not a fair meritocracy because Democrats today insist on discrimination against whites. If this is what you meant, then I agree. I personally have no use for the Democrats’ racism from either era.
As for number 2, just listen to yourself. Whites of intellect and virtue? She may as well be searching for unicorns, right Cobra? And privileged? I would be keenly interested to hear your list of the so-called privileges I have enjoyed in life that you have not.
And she wasn’t interested in placating the bias of others (again, white racism I gather?). Rather, she very thoughtfully pondered if it would be hypocritical to accept preferential treatment that she doesn’t agree with. It’s a good question because pro-preference blacks often use this angle to silence black counter-points on the issue.
I hope this tactic never works on her.
Rick,
You do not understand what you are talking about. I had said many times to many people that alumni legacy preferences and race preferences are exactly the same. If a race preference
for blacks and Latinos was a DNA molecule , then it would have the same molecular sequence of urines and pyrimidines as an alumni legacy reference for whites. I can list a whole series of reasons as to why they are exactly the same. It is GATTACA in other words. Both claim a right of privelege right? One based on the color of ne’s skin and the other is based on the privelege that one’s parents are well known or gave money to the school.
The beneficiaries of both preferences are either wealthy or middle class, not the poor. Race preferences benefit the black rich not the black poor. Alumni preferences benefit the white rich and middle class not the white poor , get the picture? I had always regarded both as evil, sick, demented and depraved an abomination on the face of the earth so to speak. Both belong to the Age of the Dinosaurs or the Dark Ages. You claim that Stanford does not have a ” qouta ” on blacks. The word qouta as used in the political language of today is often a misnomer. It does not mean that every year the freshman class of Stanford will be 8 % Black or 9 % Mexican – American. What matters is the intent behind it, the rationale , the justification behind it. I had told you b4 that the admissions processes of the private schools bring out the worst in human nature, it does and in many ways that might not be apparent to you. Does it matter really if the school is Stanford, Bryn Mawr, Haverford, Penn,
Lehigh, Bucknell, Franklin and Marshall or Yale? Do you really believe that the ultimate objective of Stanford is tobring down the wisdom of the ages, to advance the cause of humanity, to right out the wrongs and evils of this world?
If you believe in that nonsense, then you are indeed gullible and naive. If anyone believes in that nonsense ncluding John, then they are fools.
Private schools like many institutions in the end have only 1 objective and it is to survive. If they have to lie,engage in deceit to do it,they will do it. The so – called Early Decision and Early admit programs will tell you that that is indeed the case. I can see that you have little knowledge of the history of these private schools and how they operate since their founding.
Forget about what the SC defines as a qouta. I doubt very much if that black – robed company understand that term very well. Look Rich, what matters is the intent behind the ” qouta ” of blacks at STanford. It does not matter that much if blacks make up 4 % or 10% or 15 % of the freshman class of Stanford. If blacks make up only 4 %, there will be a predictable chorus among race preferetialists who will claim that it is too few. If the percentage was 15%, there will even be greater outrage among whites who will claim that Stanford admitted an even greater number of unqualified blacks. The intent behind the inclusion of blacks at STanford is simple, it is not to right the wrongs of slavery , or as
reparation for the abominable treatment of blacks in the past but to ensure that Stanford will be spared criticism, denounciation or lawsuits or opprobium for not enrolling blacks or more blacks. I most honestly assure that is done out of pure self – interest. Just ask Stanford chief admissions officer Robin Mamlet if she will be warm to the idea that Stanford should have a freshman class with a 20% percent black representation.She will of course mumble something like ” of course if we can get a lot of qualified blacks……. “. She knows better……. At present the representation of blacks at Stanford which is about 7 or 8 percent suits Stanford fine, sparing it from more strident criticism. You can see by now that the rationale behind every decision in the STanford admissions process is always driven by self – interest. Even the Stanford admissions officers might not know that, but that is the true nature of private school admissions. Take a look at alumni legacy admissions. Alumni legacya dmissions involve monetary donations on the part of usually wealthy white parents to get their mediocre kids entry into private schools like Stanford, Penn or Bryn Mawr ( forget about this Quaker business ). Alumni donations in other words are nothing but BRIBES, PAYOLA, PAYoff, mordida ( or whatever the hell you want
to call them ). I already cited the example of the Bass daughter to highlght this system at Stanford. Harvard has already admitted that it admitted an applicant with a SAT score of 900 and high school average of C just because his father was the chairman of Harvard’s fundraising campaign. Stories like this are legion in the private schools. Why do you think Harvard admitted that it denies admission to the majority of applicants with a perfect 1600 SAT score who apply to Harvard ? Admit someone with an SAT score of 900 and deny someone with
a SAT score of 1600 ? HA ,Ha……insanity my friend.
Why do you think that graduates from private schools like Harvard, Penn, Stanford or Bryn Mawr have a higher alumni giving rate to their alma mater than public school graduates at Berkeley
or UCLA. The reason is simple, it is the
promise of admissions consideration in return for a bribe. That is not going to happen at Berkeley or UCLA hence with the predictable results of lower giving rates to these 2 public schools among the alumni. It is the scratch -your back – scratch my back or quid pro qou
that matters . The rationale is the same
as far as admitting people with extracurriculars, being class prexy, yearbook editor, oboist etc. It is the grating self – interest of the university that matters not what is ethical or moral. If you do not understand this John or Rich , then you do not understand private higher education in this country.
Leo Cruz
Leo Cruz is a Pilipino. He is an aspiring janitor.
Stuart,
You have this animus against “democrats” in regards to civil rights. You’re not acknowleging the fact that these democrats were white people. Given the fact that there have only been FOUR African American Senators, TWO African American Supreme Court Justices, and a comparatively few African Americans in the House of Representatives. Although I am a certified liberal, I don’t hold ANY political party above criticism.
That being said, you also seem to believe I promote “anti-white rhetoric”. Well, Stuart…if you consider the historical and societal truths of discrimination against minorities by the white majority as “anti-white rhetoric”, then I’d suggest you’re an apologist for the documented, undisputed record of bias in America.
Now, if you actually feel that way, fine by me. I would just hope you’d be HONEST about it.
–Cobra
Cobra,
I have to thank you again; I really do enjoy our chats. Though simply negotiating your labryinthine logic is enough to keep me mentally sharp–or at least less dull. I wonder, do you have extensive experience in advanced ciphers–perhaps with the NSA?
Enough speculation though. Let me crawl back out of the rabbit hole and attempt a response.
1) I have no animus against democrats–I am one. I have great animus against Democrats, however–in regard to so-called civil rights as well as nearly everything else. Furthermore, democrats and Democrats bear only a passing resemblance to each other in practice.
2) I’m not acknowledging the fact that most of these Democrats were white because it has absolutely not one (expletive deleted) thing to do with my argument. A group of white Democrats insisted on discrimination against blacks 50 years ago. Today, a group of mostly white Democrats insist on discrimination against whites (though with overwhelming black support). I made no statement or implication as to the legislators’ skin color. You did.
3)Cobra, to say you promote anti-white rhetoric is to say that the Pope is Catholic. I haven’t conducted an exhaustive survey, though I would wager that every single post beyond a sentence length you have entered on this site has included a statement of white malevolence. You don’t like white people, I get it already. But as long as you are exhorting honesty, perhaps you’ll want to participate yourself.
Finally,(and quite naturally) you note the “historical” and “documented” bias of whites against blacks. Well, I don’t live in either history or documentation. In today’s world we all better start relinquishing our cherished hatreds, because nobody is going anywhere. And the sooner the University of Michigan starts treating its applicants as human beings rather than colored jelly beans the better our society will be.
Cobra wrote:
You have this animus against “democrats” in regards to civil rights. […]
—
How could anyone possibly have animus against democrats in regards to Civil Rights? The preponderance of evidence is that they oppose them totally and absolutely. So does Cobra. And Cobra is a solid democrat. Everything adds up.
And you can thank the democrats for killing the black middle class. President Clinton sent all the well paying factory jobs overseas via GATT and NAFTA. Your hatred of whites blinds you to the fact that you are a partner in the destruction of the very economy upon which you depend for your survival. But you can always blame someone else, and you have always blamed someone else, and I don’t predict a sea change in the future.
The problem is this false dichotemy that if the democrats are good (and they have never been good) the republicans must be bad, and vice versa. Today the republicans seem to represent big business, and the democrats don’t even support or represent the American people. They are both rotten to the core, and playing these silly games of blaming one party while turning a blind eye to the equal abuses of the other party is about as helpful as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Is there any lie or abuse by the democrats so horrible that democrats will object to it? Not that I’ve seen. They have been dittoheads of the party line and rhetoric for at least as long as I’ve been alive. I can see why foreigners and blacks vote democrat, they hate white Americans above all else. I can see why Cobra is a democrat, he thinks they are on his side (and they are as insofar as their racism goes). Too bad he’s not looking at everything they do, or he might just question whether the party is really supporting his interests.
No matter who wins today, we all lose, and this silly bickering about party loyalties is one reason why no one’s paying attention to what the bastards are doing (from both parties).
Rich
Rich,
Your orbit is way past Quaoar if you think that I “hate whites.” Since when is detailing factual information about American history and society, hating white people? If you scan through the hundreds of posts on this blog, you’ll find people listing African American test scores, grades, crime statistics, etc,all for the purpose of making them seem UNDESERVING or UNQUALIFIED for whatever position the poster feels like.
I simply respond in kind with my documented posts about white Americans. Does that mean I hate white people? Absolutely not.
I will never change your mind, Rich. If you want to believe I’m some foaming at the mouth black leviathan, you go right ahead. I will continue to speak the truth about society, race and culture.
–Cobra
Cobra,
I think you have missed the point. Blacks are UNDESERVING and UNQUALIFIED of and for special preferences based upon their skin color, not “whatever position the poster feels like.”
You recall this argument I’m sure. It’s the exact one blacks used to make when the civil rights movement was actually worthy of its name.
By the way, I’m still eager to learn of all my “white privileges” you mentioned. Special prices on extra-value meals? Discounted oil changes? Lower tax rates? Buy one, get one free movie coupons? Come on Cobra, don’t keep me in suspense. I’m not getting any younger and would like to use my privileges. Who knows what I’ve been missing.
Stuart, my friend…have I ever disappointed you? You know if you lob a hanging curve ball like that to me I’m park it in the cheap seats.
Here is the hardcore, base root of white privilege in America, as detailed by Tim Wise, one of the great champions of civil rights alive today.
The beginnings of white privilege began in the early stages of America.
>>>”Affirmative action for whites was embodied in the abolition of European indentured servitude, which left black (and occasionally indigenous) slaves as the only UN-free labor in the colonies that would become the US Affirmative action for whites was the essence of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed virtually any European immigrant to become a full citizen, even while blacks, Asians and American Indians could not.”>>”Affirmative action for whites was the guiding principle of segregation, Asian exclusion laws, and the theft of half of Mexico for the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny. In recent history, affirmative action for whites motivated racially restrictive housing policies that helped 15 million white families procure homes with FHA loans from the 1930s to the ’60s, while people of color were mostly excluded from the same programs. In other words, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that white America is the biggest collective recipient of racial preference in the history of the cosmos. It has skewed our laws, shaped our public policy and helped create the glaring inequalities with which we still live.”>>”Indeed, the value of preferences to whites over the years is so enormous that the current baby-boomer generation of whites is currently in the process of inheriting between $7-10 trillion in assets from their parents
Cobra,
I was begining to wonder what happened to you. Alright, here’s the deal: That hanging curve I lobbed to you…Not only did you not put in the cheap seats, you didn’t even bat. You brought in a designated hitter, and he whiffed far worse than I expect you would have if you’d tried it on your own. I don’t mind quotes occasionally, but really I want to know what you have to say–I can read nonsensical trash from so-called “civil-rights” leaders until my eyeballs bleed. Though in all honesty,I found his conclusion to be riotous. Here’s the money line:
“this amount of money is more than all the outstanding mortgage debt, all the credit card debt, all the savings account assets, all the money in IRAs and 401k retirement plans, all the annual profits for US manufacturers, and our entire merchandise trade deficit combined.”
This is precious. Whites “owe” blacks more money (essentially) than all of that which is presently in circulation in the entire country. Wow! I wonder why he was so restrained? Why not all the money in the world? The galaxy? The Universe? Cobra, I think you are a more intelligent guy than this, though I am open to being convinced otherwise.
Though if I were to indulge the insane, and grant you that whites “owe” blacks everything down to the silt on the ocean floor, what on Earth did that bill of particulars have to do with you or me? I can’t pay a mortagage or buy a car with any of that silliness. My grandparents were Southern sharecroppers on both sides. I graduated from college without a dime to my name and then worked my (expletive deleted) off to accumulate some modest wealth for my family’s well-being. Where is this $7-10 trillion you mentioned? Is there a white slush-fund of which I am unaware? I haven’t seen a penny of it if so.
Also I don’t think you hate whites because you read history, read statistics, or capitalize words randomly. I think you hate whites because you tell us all publicly what racist filth you find us to be–right down to our toddling babies, I presume.
But really, this is just my opinion, and like rear-ends, everybody’s got one.
But back to the matter at hand, I ask you again…I ask you. If Stuart and Cobra are walking down the street together, what “privileges” of any kind does Stuart enjoy over his friend, Cobra? It’s a fair question that deserves a sincere response.
Stuart,
C’mon, how can I hate you, buddy? If we ever met someplace we’d close the tavern down with a spirited, friendly discussion on the issues. I’d definitely have you singing “Kumbayah” with me.
Anyway, I guess I did break out the WMD of black justice by quoting Tim Wise in my last post. He’s a lot to handle, and probably makes plenty of anti-affirmative action types very uncomfortable. So I’m going to give you what you want, and tell you how white privilege works on a personal level, in my experience.
You and I are applying for the same job, with the same experience and credentials. Stu, you’d probably think, “No brainer…Cobra’s got it in the bag because of Affirmative Action.”
Well, that’s not actually true. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, there’s a better chance you’ll be called back for job even if you were an ex-felon.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen04/news/articles/art2003-239.htm
Ok, I won’t get into glass ceilings, selective mentoring, fraternalism, cronyism, and such because I want to try to be FAIR in this argument, and not use subjectivity that could call other motivations into question. The very fact that you have the better shot at the job based upon statistics is a better indicator of my point.
Let’s say you and I walk into the car dealership. Let’s assume we both have the same good credit history, and somehow, the same salary. You’ll probably think, “Geez, Cobra’s probably going to get a better interest rate on financing than me because of Affirmative Action.”
Whoops…hate to tell you Stuart, but if I even GET the loan, there is a very real chance I will become a victim of DISCRIMINATORY LENDING, and get smacked with a higher interest rate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19326-2004Jul27.html?nav=rss_business
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/19/national/main529903.shtml
Hey, I guess I could try to hail a cab, but…you know what Danny Glover would say to that and I’m an upbeat guy, Stu..so even with the higher interest, we’re driving along. I pull up the new shiny car right behind yours…maybe I want to stop by the bookstore and pick up the latest Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter book.
Uh-oh….flashing lights in the rear view mirror..
You see, according to NBC News “Dateline”, in an unprecedented study of traffic stops uncovered, to my shock and suprise–
>>>”Dateline” analyzed 100,000 tickets issued by Cincinnati police, and, in a broader study, 4 million tickets gathered from cities across the country including Boston, Houston, Denver and San Diego.
In almost every city, blacks got ticketed more than three times as much as whites for non-moving violations, while, for other infractions “Dateline” studied, they were ticketed far more evenly.
“Discretion that the police have is being used much differently in minority communities than it is in white communities,” David Harris, a law professor and former prosecutor, tells correspondent John Larsen.
A St. Louis accountant and Sunday school teacher who happens to be black describes his driving experience this way: “We keep some bail money at home just in case I get locked up – so I can get out.”http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/8355533.htm
Stuart, do I get my point across to you? Do I have to delve into housing discrimination again? Like who would get an apartment if I show up for it, and then you show up for it?
You know I don’t have to. You already know the truth, Stu. Maybe you haven’t personally WITNESSED these type of things in your life. Maybe you haven’t had a deep conversation with minorities regarding this subject matter.
You can’t say you haven’t now. I’ve actually LIVED all four of the examples I just presented. It’s more than just annecdotal, because I provided the EVIDENCE behind my accounts.
That’s why, with a smile on my face, ask you, and any other anti-affirmative action types on this blog, if you TRULY believe that your white skin puts you at a grave disadvantage in America. I have to smile when I say it, because #1, there is no hatred in my heart, and #2, it’s such a hilarious concept to begin with.
—Cobra
Cobra,
Let me know if you are still checking this archive. I appreciate your post and will be happy to match you anecdote for anecdote. Yes, I’ve been racially discriminated against innumerable times; it’s part of being in corporate America in the age of “diversity.” Do you work in a business setting, by the way? Or are you just going by hearsay when you talk of glass ceilings?
I also spent most of my college with a black room-mate. Fear not, we had many deep discussions on this very topic and, to his eternal credit, he wants no more a part of racial preferences than I do. Also, I should mention that even though he was black, he wasn’t a minority–blacks are the majority in most large cities. Funny, that doesn’t stop black mayors and black city councils from passing patronage preferences to blacks–or should I say “minorities.”
But one area I’d love to chat with you on is your discussion of discrimination against blacks in lending. You see, I’ve worked in banking for nearly 14 years in every facet of operations. I don’t rely on blogs or articles in this area–I know the business front to back. And if you did also, we’d share a hearty laugh at the sheer preposterousness of the idea that blacks are discriminated against. In fact, if you’d like, I can walk you through the process of bank examinations–who looks at what and when. You do know that all banks are examined by federal regulators for exactly what you describe, don’t you? Do you also know that those examiners look ONLY for discrimination against “minorities?” If you don’t know this, you need to.
And as for all of your cited TV shows and studies, let me ask you this: If only people in red cars were given traffic tickets, what do you think the statistics would tell us about the correlation of driving a red car and speeding? Would the correlation be false or true? Likewise if news organizations look only to find discriminatin against blacks, what do you think their reporting will tell us about this phenomenon?
I also want to say something about the whole concept of “hating.” I don’t think you hate me as a person. In fact I would imagine you to be a gregarious fun-loving guy no matter who you were with. But you do clearly harbor intense enmity toward white people as a group.
I have seen this group/individual dichotomy many times in many different people. I have heard certain whites call blacks everything but a milk cow, and then moments later they are giving a black child candy or helping an old black lady–in highly altruistic fashion I might add. I think this is you precisely. You compartmentalize the white race (bad) from the many white individuals whom you genuinely like (good). You seem to forget that it is those very individuals that make up the white race.
More later if you are still reading…
Affirmative action is simply a tool to give everybody a fair chance, This country has been racist for 250 years and in my opinion it is still is to a degree. Now, blacks have had unequal opportunity for over 250 years. There is such a large socio-economic gap between whites and blacks that owuld need to be corrected.It owuld be better if black schooling would be on the same level as white schooling. However white schools have better teachers and moe money. So the way to even it up is affirmative action. Black people who can succeed won’t reach full potential is their schooling limits opportunity. Think about it why is it that every black person that succeeds in other than entertainment is joking called white. Example: colin powell. There’s still that belief that black aren’t as smart as whites. Most people will deny this, but they laugh at jokes all the time. Remember black people compete against black people in admissions. They don’t compete agasint whites becasue it wouldn’t be very fair if they come from an inferior education. So don’t whine about some black person with a lower score beating you,b/c you were competing not with him but white people. You can’t complain as much then, can you. Thanks for listening hopefully you can have an open mind here.
It’s obvious that the AA writing that article is barely qualified for a community college, much less the Ivy League. And her article (not even getting into how incoherent, unordered and rambling it is) operates under the very mentality that feeds the evil called affirmative action: that black people need lower standards extended to them in order for them to be able to compete with whites, rather than emphasizing that blacks should take personal responsibility, and actually earn their credentials to gain admission alongside whites! The whole time they are given SPECIAL, better-than-equal opportunity, she still feels that she is a victim, as a black person. And this is, to me, the most insulting thing about affirmative action: the whole time they are benefitting, they are so often ungrateful. They truly feel they are ENTITLED to it. And you see this with a lot of black people when it comes to food stamps and other entitlement, social hand-out programs.
Ironically, in arguing that blacks deserve aa in order to make the field “fair,” she actually belies her own point by implying that blacks can’t compete without it, which only reaffirms the point that they cannot compete with it, ie they truly are unqualified on merits.
Black people: STFU! You all have it far better in teh US than blacks have it in Africa under black governance, and you know it! You are the benficiaries of generous white people, who built these fine colleges, made almost all of the scientific advancments ever made, and have made the thriving economies off their own merits, hard work, and ingenuity. All the while you bite the hand that feeds you.
As a white person, I’m sick of it. I guarantee that if blacks were in the majority, they would not extend nearly the generosity and racial preference for whites as whites do for blacks.