I am not a single-issue voter. And if I were, in this election my single issue would have to be national security. It is thus altogether fitting and proper that most of the rhetoric in this campaign, and especially in this last week, revolves around the war on terror (or the not-war, which is how Kerry seems to see it).
Still, there are other issues, and to me the most important of them is race. If Kerry is elected, I believe the formerly hallowed American principle holding that people should be treated “without regard” to their race or religion will be put out of its current misery and interred for good. Through executive actions and judicial appointments he will build even higher walls of protection around the policy of racial preference, making it even more difficult and perhaps impossible ever to eradicate.
That is a sad and depressing prospect.
With the failing health of Rhenquist and the advancing age of the other Supremes, your statement is even more important. A shift to a new 5-4 libreal majority would have devestating consequences on state and individual rights. Even though there are two amendments in the constitution specifically reserving all rights to the states and the people, courts, especially activist-liberal ones, seem to have lost sight of that.
On the other hand, given Kerry’s seemingly lack of any core principles other than a desire to get himself elected (and presumably re-elected), doesn’t it seem likely that Kerry will just pander to whatever he thinks he needs to? If the Michigan initiative passes, and more states enact their own propositions/legislation cutting down or eliminating affirmative action, Kerry will probably be too cowardly to do anything but mumble platitudes.
Exactly when did John Kerry become a “coward?” It’s amazing what the attack propaganda of Karl Rove can do.
–Cobra
My very first viewing of Kerry occurred when my wife and I were on vacation in the Bahamas. By the way, I suggest that you visit. It is quite refreshing to visit a black owned society. People there are not blaming white folks for their problems. They are actually looking inside themselves. I suggest that Cobra try doing the same, but I’m not holding my breath.
It was an interesting contrast. I first watched the Prime Minister of the Bahamas scold young black men for their failure to go to church and take responsibility for their actions. (Do you hear, Cobra?) The Prime Minister also set forth a detailed plan for correcting this problem.
Up next, John Kerry, who literally accused Prez Bush of being in league with the Klan for putting forth the nomination of Judge Pickering. (For those of you who want to understand this issue, I suggest reading Nat Hentoff’s excellent articles about Judge Pickering.) He put on a performance that would have done Cobra proud.
Kerry is the most offensive racial panderer in U.S. politics. This pandering will not only undermine the principles of equality and justice. Kerry is another of those great “friends of blacks” who’s actions, in fact, destroy the black community, chuch and family.
The racial extortionists have a great friend in Kerry. They will have a field day if he is elected.
Cobra, I suppose in one sense you’re right: it doesn’t make much sense to accuse Kerry for cowardly refusing to stand up for his principles if he doesn’t have any principles. Still, I believe Tung Yin makes a good point. On the other hand, Bill Clinton was not known to stand (or even kneel) on principle — he adopted the Republican position on welfare, for example, and dissed Sister Souljah in front of the Rev. Jesse, etc. — but even he never abandoned racial preferences. I don’t think anyone can and remain a Democrat. That’s why Kerry, in my opinion, craven though he is, would not be likely to adopt state referendum results as his own, new position.
It will be depressing indeed, John. Skin color preferences and quotas will be protected even more than they are now. We’ve got to stand firm and continue to speak out and sue for civil rights violations. That seems to be the only recourse.
Cobra, sorry, I should have been more clear. I most certainly did *not* mean to suggest that John Kerry lacked *personal* courage, as I think his service in Vietnam, despite what the Swift Boat Vets have alleged, is itself sufficient demonstration of courage and sacrifice. However, it seems to me that when Kerry was alloted courage, ALL of it went to the personal side and NONE to the political side. Thus, when I labeled him cowardly, I meant as a politician.
Frankly, the only plausible explanation for why he voted opposed Gulf War I — even though the UN supported it, we had a grand international coalition, and Saddam invaded another country that asked for our help — yet voted for Gulf War II — even though the UN did not support, we did not have (in Kerry’s view) a grand international coalition, and Saddam had not invaded anyone — is that he thought in 1991 he could not afford to vote FOR the war and in 2003, he though he could not afford to vote AGAINST the war.
That is one clear manifestation of his political cowardice.
Question for John and Eric –
To what extent did Cheney (Yale flunkout,GPA: 1. 2)and Bush’s relatively weak academic records (Sat: 1206, Yale ’68 Avg: 1380) diminish their ability to speak strongly against preferences. It seems that one could use their careers since college as JUSTIFICATION for preferences. In other words, perhaps in some cases, it is appropriate to consider leadership and personal qualities over purely meritocratic measures like GPA and SAT. Additionally, acording to Steve Sailer at isteve.com, Kerry didn’t exactly set Yale on fire (SAT score in the low 1200s or high 1100s, Yale GPA: C+/B-)
I believe this is a legitimate point. What do you think Cobra?
James, it’s an interesting point, but not a particuarly valid one. First and most importantly, Bush, Cheney, and Kerry didn’t get into Yale because of “leadership and personal qualities,” but because they had important alumni connections. Second, the type of preference that Bush and Cheney argued against was not leadership preference, but rather racial preference.
Apart from that, I would agree that leadership and personal qualities are important for college admissions, as grades don’t say everything about a person. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to judge these qualities in practice when you have thousands of applications to sift through, so, in the limited space of an application, “leadership” usually is equivalent to “I was popular and got elected to student government.” But, when well implemented (personal interviews are a plus) I think that merit based admissions based on positive character traits are valid, and certainly more valid than melanin based admissions.
Garrick
I am not quite sure that I understand your assertion that “merit based admissions based on positive character traits are valid, and certainly more valid than melanin based admissions.” It seems to me that they both acheive similar ends:
1. In the former, they increase the pool of people with exceptional leadership qualities (charisma, organization skills, etc) that are exposed to and benefit from an education at a first rate institution. Presumably, these people graduate from the university and use these skills, in addition to the education they acquired, to fill important leadership positions in the country (President, Senator, Gunboat officer, Vice President, Governor, Secretary of Defense)
2. In the latter, they increase the pool of underepresented minorites that are exposed to and benefit from an education at a first rate university. Presumably, these people graduate from the university and bring important perspectives from their life experiences to the leadership positions they fill. Perhaps,let’s say, as a Supreme Court justice.
To your point about alumni preferecnes, I have read somewhwere that Cheney probably received a “regional preference” because he was from a region of the country (Wyoming, Far West) that was not well represented at Yale. Why would such a preference be more valid than one based on race?
Finally, it seems that one of the central arguments against preferences, repeated ad nauseam on this site, is that preferences stigmatize its beneficiaries. Question: Have Bush, Cheney, and Kerry seen their careers affected by such stigma (which might be considered legitimate based on a consideration of their ACTUAL academic performance) or does it only apply to people that whites can readily identify and makes assumptions about based on their skin color.
Thoughts?
What is amazing to me is the number of Blacks who have supported candidates like Gore, Clinton, and Kerry when those same candidates would not let a young african-American male from a public school with a couple of 100 feet of their daughters. If Kerry is all for divesity, then why did he send his daughters to Phillips Academy in Andover? I doubt it was for the diversity.
Superdestroyer –
“would not let a young african-American male from a public school within a couple of 100 feet of their daughters.”
That statement has to be the mother of all red-herrings. Unless Kerry moved to Wyoming, Utah, Montana, or some other god forsaken outpost, he’d have absoutely no control over whether a black male, or any other male for that matter, came within 100 feet of his daughter. What an asinine argument.
Address the merits of my comments above.
James-
In response to your earlier question, I don’t see how the collegiate records of the candidates inform the modern debate on preferences in admissions. Higher education in general, and the Ivies in particular, have changed considerably over the past forty years, and have attempted to mold themselves as meritocratic rather than the old boys network of the past. If that is the case, if these institutions are truly looking for the best and the brightest, than race should have nothing to do with it (neither should the 14th amendment, or the 1965 Civil Rights Act, either – but, sadly, the all do). It should be just about being the best and the brightest. And, unless you’re looking for the person with the best dark skin, or best light skin, race alone should never be a factor.
As I understand it, and John, please correct me if I’m wrong, affac started as a way to somehow alleviate historic discrimination (as a side note, why was this accomodation never exteded to Jews? They were overtly and explictly discriminated against in higher education, only “caps” were set on enrollment rather than outright prohibition). When the Supremes ruled that discrimination to make up for discrimination was unconstitutional, the notion of diversity magically appeared in the University President’s lexicon.
Also, my fear of the Kerry appointments (though somewhat tempered by my belief that the Senate will remain Republican) stem from more than the candidates opinions on racial preferences. For the most part, it is difficult for there to be an “activist” conservative judge. Conservative judges, in general, err on the side of the state or the individual, looking to control government regulation in general (especially that of the Federal government), leaving it to the people and the states to police themselves. Liberal judges, on the other hand, are “activist” in the sense that they tend to allow government action that is not expressly authorized in statutes or the Constitution (or, conversely, create new rights out of thin air). Both these practices are called “legislating from the bench”. And, I like the Constitution just the way it is, so I’ll keep my legislation in the legislatures, thank you very much.
I will address this to whomever it was that answered my post but forgot to include their name.
You make the mistake of assuming that diversity is exclusively synonymous with “lots of different skin colors.” It’s not. Diversity comes from individuality, from differing opinions and beliefs. Diversity as you define it necessarily relies upon generalizations based on race (e.g. “Ah, I see you’re black! You must have a unique cultural perspective!”). It is really unfair to everyone involved to turn a student into a representation of their race and expect them to bring the steryotypical traits of that culture into the school environment. Nor is it fair to minimalize the importance of an individual just because their group is already statistically well represented. Everyone has had different experiences, so every student adds diversity.
From what I have seen of “diversity” at colleges, it usually amounts to this: administrators are so worried about making minorities feel welcome that they hold all sorts of special events and seminars for them (we had a “Latino/a Barbecue”), give them special places to study where they can “feel safe” and generally tell them that discrimination is going to make their lives difficult. The net result is that everyone voluntarily segregates themselves into their own racial groups and everyone is denied the benefit of exposure to other cultures. It is difficult to argue that this is a situation more diverse than having only one skin color represented. Affirmative action and multicultural programs seem to prevent more dialogue than they create.
As for regional representation, that doesn’t make much more sense, since admitting underqualified (if they’re qualified their admission wouldn’t depend on their hometown) students just for the sake of having someone from every state isn’t really beneficial to the school environment.
Character based admissions are more acceptable because they judge applicants as INDIVIDUALS, not as a statistical representation of their regional or ethnic group. Choosing a group of hard working, inquisitive, knowledgeable, open-minded, and responisble students will naturally lead to a diverse, positive environment, as these individuals will be more willing and able to engage in open discourse and will by their nature seek the true nature of things rather than superficialities.
A student body created by affirmative action (be it racial or regional) might very well be a diverse student body. But it won’t be diverse BECAUSE of affirmative action.
James, superdestroyer does make a somewhat valid point. It often seems as though those most supportive of diversity and affirmative action have been politicians who send their kids to elite private schools with little racial diversity and who benefit greatly from legacy admissions. It’s hard for a rich prep schools and country clubs politician to come off as a “man of the people,” but a lot of them try. By the way, Montana is one of the most beautiful places on the planet, not a “godforsaken outpost.” Go to Glacier National Park, then return to an anonymous metropolis. Then tell me where one is more likely to feel God ;).
James,
Clinton, Gore, and Kerry all sent their daughters to elite private schools. Do you really think that any of their instructors attended historically black universities or were members of Delta Sigma Theta? They then ensure that their daughters attended elite private universities were the represenatives blacks were either the children of rich immigrants or the children of rich black americans like Harold Ford. They then move into control condos in cities like New York where the review boards will ensure that the only blacks in the building are those mopping the floors. The Clintons and Kerry also have condos in Aspen, the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, or British Columbia. They work in industries with almost no blacks.
I would love for Kerryto be asked “Name three things you did to increase the diversity in your daughter’s lives?” I doubt he could answer expect to maybe say that they went on an African Safari.
I think that many on the left are uncomfortable with being view as individuals; they prefer the anonymity of group identification. That provides not only group identity but also emotional security. “See, all these people are just like me, and together we’re strong!”
This group connectedness is at the root of much of the left’s philosophy. It is very antithetical by its very nature to the historic individualism of much of American culture, but that philosophy has become almost umbiquitous in our schools, our universities, and much of our social and political culture, due directly to the ongoing efforts of believers on the left.
Much of the conflict over AA seems to boil down to whether people should be judged as individuals or members of a group. The right tends to favor the former, and the left favors the latter.
This is a fundamental disconnect in worldviews that cannot be resolved by discussion, as it is an unrealized assumption for many on both sides. But instead of addressing this root assumption, they argue about the conclusions of their assumptions, never realizing that, rather than drawing different conclusions from the same base set of information, instead they are drawing different conclusions from base assumptions that are mutually exclusive. So ‘talking about the issues’ will never resolve them, and usually only ignite harsh feelings due to the fundamental misunderstandings.
Sad.
Claire
You’re statement that “many on the left are uncomfortable with being viewed as individuals; they prefer the anonymity of group identification” is laughable. If group identification were the exclusive purview of the left how do you explain the existence of groups such as The Moral Majority and Evangelical Christians who attempt to impose their definition of “traditional marriage” on their homosexual neighbors. How do you explain Alan Keyes slur of Mary Cheney as a “Selfish hedonist”, when he’s never met and knows absolutely nothing about her character other than that she is attracted to other women. Get real, your little soliloquy is so 1980s (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.)
How Sad.
Garrick and James
You’re implication that Gore, Clinton, and Kerry send their children to elite private schools to avoid blacks is a joke. Elite private schools have existed in this country for hundreds of years. People today, as people did a hundred years ago, send their children to these schools because they possess superior educational resources and offer access to the doors of the establishment. Why do you think Bush I sent little George to Phillips? He could have easily avoided blacks in an early 60s Midland, Texas High School.
Finally, it is important to point out that elite private schools value diversity. According to Heather Macdonald in City Journal, “both Andover and Exeter highlight diversity in their mission statements, with Andover
James,
Heather MacDonald has made a career out of venting her hostility towards African Americans. There’s an eager audience for it at the Manhattan Institute. Not only do I wholeheartedly agree with you, I would push it further and ask Superdestroyer what would be the significance of John Kerry’s daughters being near a black male. It’s painfully obvious to any casual observer of American society to see the hypocrisy of anti-diversity/inclusion types calling out Kerry for not having enough diverse friends around his daughters. And don’t get me started on the “re-segregation” of American society, because there isn’t room enough on this blog for my answer.
–Cobra
Actually, my only point in stating Kerry’s choice of his daughter’s school is that it’s difficult to imagine Kerry as a champion of the oppressed when he is clearly a part of the priveleged rich white boy society that Cobra and others rail about. I apologize for implying that it means he’s racist or doesn’t value diversity, but it does seem difficult to imagine that he can really empathize with the plight of those students, black and white, stuck in underperforming public schools.
I still stand by my argument of the failure of affirmative action here at U of M. Come by and visit sometime and you’ll see what I mean. Exposure to political viewpoint tends to be pretty one sided: our last two major speakers were Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky. There really isn’t a lot of healthy discourse on race realtions or anything like that. Classes that claim to offer this usually just turn into white bashing and offer little discussion about alternatives for producing a more positive environment in the future. It just seems like the school is operating under the assumption that most of its white students are at least “subconciously” racist and all of its minority students ought to feel oppressed, which simply isn’t fair for anyone. Fortunately, many of the individuals don’t buy into this, and as a result I’ve made friends from many cultures. The sad thing is that this is due to individual efforts, and occurs in spite of the University’s diversity programs, not because of them.
James,
The elite avoiding others has always been one of the principles of prep schools. In the past, they excluded Jews and now are a method for rich, white liberals to avoid blacks. It is easy for white liberals to support bussing, quotas, and set asides because their own children are totally unaffected by those policies.
In addition, do you think any teacher at Phillip Academy (where the Kerry sisiters attended) attended a historic black university or is a member of Delta Sigma Thetea.
Also, these days, prep schools are also a way for the elite whites to avoid having the butts kicked by the Asain kids who seem to come out of public schools better prepared for college than the rich whites from the prep schools (look at how white kids at Duke seem to measure in government or economics where the asain kids stick it out in the sciences).
Also, look at their career choices after college. The last two Democrat candidates had daughters who ended up in film yet none of their kids go into industry. If Kerry wants to create more jobs but cannot even convince his own kids to go into fields that actually create jobs.
Superdestroyer
1. “cannot even convince his own kids to go into fields that actually create jobs” – Since when did the film industry not create jobs.The film industry is vital to Caifornia’s economy and creates thousands of jobs a year. Don’t take my word for it, go to this link and see how Republican Governor Arnold Schwarznegger views the industry: http://www.joinarnold.com/en/press/pressdetail.php?id=406
2.”these days, prep schools are also a way for the elite whites to avoid having their butts kicked by the Asain kids who seem to come out of public schools better prepared for college than the rich whites from the prep schools” – In the space of one sentence you contradict yourself. You believe that whites use prep schools to shield their kids from Asians who end up “kicking” their butts in the Sciences at the University level anyway. Explain that logic.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>Also, look at their career choices after college. The last two Democrat candidates had daughters who ended up in film yet none of their kids go into industry. If Kerry wants to create more jobs but cannot even convince his own kids to go into fields that actually create jobs.>>Vanessa was pre-med at her father and (Bush’s) alma mater, Yale. At Harvard, she has studied infectious diseases and spent time in Ghana immunizing children. Alex studied anthropology and media at Brown University…
…Between campaign appearances, the sisters are pursuing their own lives. Alex will spend part of late summer in Hawaii shadowing the director of ABC’s new drama Lost. (As an actress, she has had small roles in two David Mamet films, 2000’s State and Main and this year’s Spartan.)
After the election, Vanessa will take a year off from medical school and pursue a master’s degree in health and economics from the London School of Economics and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-07-14-kerry-daughters_x.htm
Last time I checked, Ghana had one or two black guys running around in it. LOL.
Now, I don’t know about you, but that’s a pretty impressive pair of young ladies from ANY political affiliation.
–Cobra
Garrick writes:
>>>From what I have seen of “diversity” at colleges, it usually amounts to this: administrators are so worried about making minorities feel welcome that they hold all sorts of special events and seminars for them (we had a “Latino/a Barbecue”), give them special places to study where they can “feel safe” and generally tell them that discrimination is going to make their lives difficult. The net result is that everyone voluntarily segregates themselves into their own racial groups and everyone is denied the benefit of exposure to other cultures. It is difficult to argue that this is a situation more diverse than having only one skin color represented. Affirmative action and multicultural programs seem to prevent more dialogue than they create.
What I was suggesting, Cobra, was that the positive inter-ethnic friendships I have are due to open minded individuals, not the policies of the administration.
It has been positive to have many different types of individuals living in proximity. My experience has been much like yours… we’re just a bunch of college guys. But two things:
1) The color of their skin isn’t what makes them diverse (the white students are extremely diverse amongst themselves- indeed everyone is unique and I can’t really say that those with similar skin are more alike than those with different colors), but race is all that the administration cares about when it forms diversity policy. They seem far more concerned with creating enough racial groups to segment everyone into than actually encouraging interracial dialogue.
2) Most of these students are bright, hard working individuals who don’t need to be condescended to and told that they need lower standards or that their skin color is going to make things at school harder for them. The students creating diversity are the type of students who are going to succeed without affirmative action.
The administration’s policies haven’t completely prevented dialogue, but they do plant the seed of mistrust. White students, though they don’t want to doubt the abilities of their minority colleagues, can’t help but wonder when the administration tells them that “diversity” requires unequal standards. And minority students, who don’t want to mistrust their white fellow students, are led to doubt when organizations tell them that most whites will be racist and make their lives difficult.
Perhaps my greatest concern though, is that, as you mentioned, there are more important issues to be resolved in places like Detroit. Affirmative action at U of M isn’t going to end the poverty in Detroit- what they need is an improved economy and better schools that will make them prepared for college. What concerns me is the assumption that affirmative action is some sort of panacea that will somehow alleviate inequality through a judicious use of discrimination. It doesn’t create diversity here at college, and it doesn’t answer the issues of poverty and bad public schools that are really hoding back minorities. It distracts from the real issues. Here on campus, it plants the seed of distrust and makes the genuinely concerned feel that they will be persecuted if they attempt to question the administration’s policies. I think we have to agree that affirmative action is, at very best, an imperfect solution- how can we find a better one if we are deemed discriminatory by school administrators for questioning it?
Garrick writes:
>>>I think we have to agree that affirmative action is, at very best, an imperfect solution- how can we find a better one if we are deemed discriminatory by school administrators for questioning it?
Superdestroyer: I fail to see the logic in your assertion that Kerry (and other democrats, I suppose) is somehow a hypocrite because he presents himself as pro-diversity, but his daughters don’t attend traditionally diverse universities. Kerry’s pro-diversity claims are entirely benefitting to African Americans, and even the biggest fan of affirmative action understands that such practices hurt the white majority (they merely justify it by saying that said majority can afford the beating).
Here’s an analogy: If politician A claimed to be such a humanitarian that he’d do everything in his power to help poor people ascend the social class ladder (remember, this is an analogy, so if you make a post flaming politician A as a communist, it’ll probably be deleted), rather than attack this viewpoint, your strategy apparently would be to see if he lives in the ghetto, or furthermore if his daughter goes to a state institution, and finding neither true, call him a hypocrite. But political strategy and viewpoints and personal or family life choices unconnected topics, except in the fanatical case. Therefore you’re basically doing nothing but accusing Kerry of not being *fanatic* about his beliefs enough to force his family to adhere in the most superficial ways. Your obvious status as a huge fan of politician B doesn’t give you the right to put forth such a ridiculous arguement, does it?
While I’d wager that upon questioning on the topic of underage substance and alcohol abuse, Bush (or nearly any politician) would speak *against* such practices, his daughter’s “no contest” plea to charges of underrage possession and using a fake ID in no way makes Bush a hypocrite.
Cobra, I’m a little bit dissappointed. You’ve fallen back into the trap of assuming that anyone who doesn’t agree with affirmatove action doesn’t think you deserve a chance to get into college at all, or that anyone who publicly criticizes affirmative action is pandering to white southern racists. As I recall, Bush didn’t say “whites rule!” he just said that he opposed legalized discrimination. But somehow the fact that he said it on Martin Luther King Day means that he’s a racist? MLK day is a perfect opportunity to highlight the problems and hypocrisy inherent in today’s affirmative action programs. Wasn’t Martin Luther King the man who wanted people to be judged “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”? Affirmative action makes a mockery of that man’s dream by doing precisely what he loathed in the bigots who hated him: making judgements based solely on race. He didn’t say, “I have a dream that one day we will be judged mostly on the content of our character, but with bonus points for being darker than other people.”
In any case, Bush had every right to speak out about it whenever he wanted, just as you have a right to protest in favor of affirmative action whenever you see fit. The attitude you express is precisely what is holding the affirmative action debate back. Anyone who criticizes affirmative action publicly is assaulted by liberal political groups, most of them far less reasonable than you, Cobra. What if I had spoken against affirmative action thatt day? Would that make me a panderer to racists? I doubt Martin Luther King would argue that any one race had exclusive rights to his legacy, since the whole purpose of his life was to overcome differences in race.
So what if some conservatives have an “affirmative action bake sale”? Is it wrong to point out the ridiculousness of having different standards for different people just because they have different amounts of melanin in their skin? Sure, some of them might think blacks don’t deserve to be there, but the majority really do just want equality. Most of them actually seem a bit more reasonable than the average group of protesters.
So what if David Horowitz writes articles you don’t like? Actually, the fact that you actually think he would have any sway at the Daily, a paper liberal enough that even a lot of the liberals make fun of it shows you don’t know a whole lot about U of M ;). One of the few mentions I could find of him in the archives was a letter to the editor from pro Israeli students asking him to pipe down because he was making them look bad. Sure, Horowitz can’t claim to know what’s best for all blacks, but then, neither can you, or I, or Jesse Jackson, or anyone for that matter. That’s why we need some reasoned debate about it. The problem is that any time I mention that I oppose affirmative action, the knee jerk reaction is for anyone who disagrees with me to assume I’m racist.
At the risk of sounding harsh, which I don’t intend to, I don’t think students who wouldn’t otherwise meet U of M’s standards should be let in. It minimalizes the efforts of those students, black and white, who work their butts off to be accepted to the University. What good is it to allow underprepared students into the college when you neglect the poor schools that left them unprepared? And any time the admissions board turns down a white student to let a black student in, that is every bit as bad as an employer refusing to hire a black man. The student will be no less devastated because they’re white. You have denied someone the chance to succeed BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. That is wrong, period. Could you honestly tell a white student who had worked hard in school for 13 years that they would have to give up their dream because they weren’t dark enough? None of the arguments for affirmative action can overcome the fact that it requires unfair discrimination to implement, even if supporters try to justify that discrimination.
What I don’t understand is why, when opposing racism is essentially an issue of morality, you concede the moral high ground by so quickly resorting to the very tool that has, as you have been so quick to note, oppressed minorities for centuries in this country?
Equal opportunity will mean nothing if we gain it by the tempting quick fix of discriminating to cure discrimination. We cannot make the bigots realize that all races are equally capable of success if we lower standards for minorities; that simply justifies the racists’ argument that blacks don’t deserve to be in college. We cannot build a country of equality on a foundation of inequality. We cannot create a positive future if we abandon the very ideals we claim to be fighting for.
Garrick,
First, the Michigan Review would be happy to print Horowitz. In fact, they had an interview with him here:
http://www.michiganreview.com/article.php?id=152
I don’t know why I’m dissappointing you. I’m not making sweeping generalizations, or “falling back on anything.” It doesn’t take a paranoid person to see an organized protest questioning their very presence as being somewhat sinister. I’m sure a person in a wheelchair might feel a bit queasy about an “anti-handicap access bake sale” too.
Let’s turn the hypocrisy around for a second, Garrick.
On Saturday, October 30th, about 100,000 fans, students and alumni will pack that stadium of yours hoping that All-America candidate Braylon Edwards catches some more touchdown passes against Michigan State. In case you’re wondering, Braylon Edwards is an African American senior.
http://mgoblue.com/bio.cfm?bio_id=47§ion_id=258&top=2&level=3&season=927
Now, we BOTH know that according to the Michigan Admission points scale at the time of his application, Edwards received 20 bonus points for athletics.
By your own “theory”, Edwards surely took a spot in that class from a white student, who might have had better grades or test scores, but no sub-4.5 40 yard dash time.
I will bet you three cookies that there will be NO “anti-athletic bonus preferance bake sales” by the campus conservatives in front of the end zone tommorrow in protest.
There was an amazing discussion about the Michigan case on this blog a couple of months back that even prompted Jennifer Gratz herself to contribute. I think you should read into to some of it, because my main argument with Gratz was the same I just placed to you…selective outrage.
Whenever I depict Gratz in my cartoons, I draw her with a Tom Brady #12 Patriots jersey, because, as I researched, Tom Brady was accepted to Michigan that year with a lower GPA than Gratz, but Gratz didn’t have a problem with him, or the 1500 other whites and Asians with lower grades or test scores. She cried race.
It’s the HYPOCRISY, Garrick. The anti-affirmative action types usually don’t yell out against legacies, children of the rich & famous, or as James put it so well, geographic privilege. With less than 5,000 freshman slots and over 20,000 applicants per year, even an ALL-WHITE class would leave out upwards of 10,000 mostly deserving white students. There’s no “manifest destiny” going on at Michigan, Garrick.
But back to the thread and politics. For George W. Bush to use MLK’s birthday to come out against Affirmative Action is akin to using Yom Kipur to denounce Zionism. Even though the conservatives of MLK’s time DISPISED him, (not to mention wire-tapping, imprisoning and murdering him) today’s conservatives talk like he’s a Fox News contributor. The truth lies in King’s OWN WRITINGS.
>>>King was well aware of the arguments used against affirmative action policies. As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can’t Wait: “Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic…”
…King supported affirmative action-type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he put it, “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro” to compete on a just and equal basis (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates”
http://www.fair.org/extra/9505/king-affirmative-action.html
Given a choice between following the wisdom of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and President George W. Bush…
Y’all know the answer from me on that one.
–Cobra
The anti-affirmative action types usually don’t yell out against legacies…
Well, Cobra, speaking as an “anti-affirmative action type,” let me say that I’ve discussed what you call “HYPOCRISY” so often the relevant keys on my keyboard are worn smooth. Most of these posts were before your time here. If you’ll do a search here on IUNS (for reasons that will become clear when you see the first several posts under that label), you’ll see that I find your argument here — that discrimination on the basis of race is of a piece with, is no different from or worse than, discrimination on the basis of athletic ability or legacy status to be one of the saddest, sorriest in this whole debate.
John,
The title of your blog is “Discriminations”, and you define its purpose as being–
>>>what? John’s focus, not surprisingly, will be on the theory and practice of discrimination, and how it is reported and analyzed.
You see, you make NO DISTINCTION about types of discrimination, therefore
my comments about the selective outrage by anti-affirmative action types is quite valid, and well within the context of your own mission statement.
–Cobra
Cobra – I did not say your comment about legacies, athletes, etc., was in any way inappropriate because it was off topic. Indeed, it was right on topic — most critics of us “anti-affirmative action types” say just what you said. What I said was that it was wrong. In fact, I believe it is far worse than wrong because it belittles and demeans the importance and centrality of racial discrimination by equating it with discrimination on the basis of talent or residence or birth. It has never been a core value of American society that each individual should be judged without regard to athletic or musical ability, etc. Your argument about legacies etc. would have some salience against those who put all their eggs in the “merit” basket, but I am not one of those. I myself rather like merit as traditionally defined, but I believe institutions have a right to give preference on the basis of a whole range of non-merit issues if they so choose — but NOT on the basis of race or religion.