According to an article in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education, the Black Coaches Association has charged that “[c]olleges are not doing enough to open up their hiring processes for head football coaches to include minority candidates.”
What does the BCA mean by open hiring processes? Among other things, that
- At least 30 percent of the people on the college’s search committee were members of minority groups;
- At least 30 percent of the candidates invited for an on-campus interview were members of minority group.
What if a college invited only two candidates for on-campus interviews? Or four? What if none of its top three or four candidates were members of a minority group? One college received an “F” grade fromt he BCA because it hired internally, and did not bring any outside candidates to campus.
And people wonder why “affirmative action” is so often thought to involve quotas.
At least no one got punished, unlike the Detroit Lions…
I suppose that African American coaches aren’t as “qualified” as White coaches? Otherwise, what would be the merit issue that would support not hiring them?
–Cobra
Cobra – Some are; some aren’t. The point is, candidates should be considered, interviewed, and selected on the basis of qualifications, not color. There might be some searches where the top 3 candidates would all be minorities, and others where none of the top 3 would be. I wouldn’t have thought this would be so hard to understand.
Based on my quick reading of this story in today’s LA Times, I think historically black colleges and universities were excluded from the survey. I would be curious to see how those schools’ hiring procedures would rate according to the BCA criteria.
John writes:
>>>There might be some searches where the top 3 candidates would all be minorities, and others where none of the top 3 would be. I wouldn’t have thought this would be so hard to understand.
Well, let’s look at the statistics.
>>>Among those making that charge�and wanting to change things for the better�is Myles Brand, the new president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the giant association overseeing intercollegiate athletics.
Brand, the former president of the University of Indiana, says bluntly that too often, “qualified minority candidates who have demonstrated … talent, determination, and effort have been figuratively stiff-armed by a process that prevents them from competing for head coaching positions or jobs in senior athletic administration.”
Again, statistics help tell the story, and they are startling.
Brand points out that only four of the 117 head coaches in Division 1-A are black, and, excluding the historically black colleges and universities, just 15 out of 547 collegiate head football coaches are African-American.
The dearth of black (and Latino) coaches doesn’t just exist in football. Of nearly 14,000 head coaching positions (excluding historically black colleges and universities) in the NCAA, fewer than 800 are African-American males and fewer than 200 are African-American females.http://www.civilrights.org/issues/enforcement/details.cfm?id=17281
I guess you’d have to stretch the definition of “some searches” if you believe your sentence explains this stark picture.
–Cobra
Cobra,
The running back position in football has become an all-black position because of the dominant physical capabilities of black athletes.
I suspect that white men have superior capabilities for the position of head football coach.
That’s the reason it works out that way.
When are black men going to stop acting the way you do? It’s really become an embarassment.
And, by embarassment I mean this:
I know, primarily from church and from my associations with musicians, plenty of black men who are getting it together and making a life for themselves. You are just pitching BS here. There is nothing in the way. In fact, you’ve got the advantage through affirmative action and all the related perks.
You are hooked on the bitching. You are in fact an addict, hooked on blaming others for your own life. The Mau-Mauing is certainly an effective tactic. Whites, in general, are afraid to call you on your BS.
I’m not. Every word you’ve written on this forum is self-serving BS. Most of it is overtly racist, in a way that would be instantly understood if it were uttered by a white man.
So, the question, once again. Why doesn’t this embarass you? Don’t you have any pride at all?
Stephen,
With you around, I really don’t need to illustrate the attitudes minorities face from the white majority every day in America.
Thank you very much sir, for your continued support of my viewpoint.
Sincerely,
–Cobra
The bullying, whining, pissing around and general stupidity that so many black men display is beginning to appal a group you might want to consider… black women.
I could take a different black woman home from my office every night. The reason is pretty simple… most black men are acting like you and black women are increasingly fed up with it. In my firm we have, literally, dozens of black women in executive and management positions. This is because, unlike you, they work.
I am totally fed up with the excuse-mongering, name calling, and general idiocy represented by black men who follow your stupid, lazy ways.
I will fight you every place you want down to the last penny… in the office, on the street corner… anywhere you want.
I don’t care what you think. You have the mentality of a thief. And you are as vicious a racist as I’ve ever encountered.
And to the white men who read this interchange, I want to tell you that you are part of the problem
You need to stop backing down from blackmailing racists like Cobra. I mean you need to publicly answer black men who soil themselves this way.
You also need to go to the gym and get in shape, so that when you encounber a thug like Cobra on the street, you will know how to fight back. I do.
You will be doing black men a favor if you do this. What black men really need from white men right now is a punch in the nose. Stop being afraid of monsters like Cobra who live solely to try to frighten, blackmail and extort.
“Give me what I want or you are a racist.”
For those of you who cannot quite figure it out, this is Cobra. It is all there is to this man. He has nothing else going in life except this foul extortion racket.
He should be ashamed of himself. He could study and work hard, but he doesn’t. The reason is that most of you white men are cowards. Cobra knows this and he is playing you for the suckers that you are. Playing you beats studying and working hard.
What Cobra doesn’t know is that he is the one who ultimately gets played for the chump in this game.
Cobra,
Your stats do nothing to support the claim that black coaches are not allowed to compete, as you claim. All they say is that there are “not enough” blacks actually ending up as coaches.
You do nothing to undercut John’s argument, which is that the pool of competitors may very well be fair, and the policy does nothing to address it. The policy is tantamount to a quota, and what you advocate is nothing but a quota.
Therefore, either you don’t really advocate a quota system (which doesn’t seem the case), or you do, in which case you prove John’s neverending thesis on this blog.
You really need to reevaluate correct argumentation form if you want any of your points to stick in any of John’s readers’ minds, instead of making us all think you just want to stick to the victimization schtick, which would seem to be the case.
Get over it. Have you ever even tried to achieve?
Andrew,
My point was very clear. My question to John was whether or not blacks were qualified to be head coaches, given the stark statistics presented. John’s response that some are, and some are not. When you’re talking about FOUR out of 117, and 15 out of 547, you are way beyond a realistic definition of “some.” If it’s John’s belief, (as well as your own) that there are only FOUR African Americans in the nation qualified to be a head coach of football at the Division 1-A level, and only 15 in ALL of College Football, whereas total African American involvement in the sport at player level is nearly 50 percent, then I believe there is a PROBLEM in the HIRING PROCESS of head coaches in regards to African Americans.
Why is this so difficult to comprehend, Andrew? Maybe you share the same Al Campanis type attitude that my friend Stephen does in his peek into the “anti-affirmative action type” mindset:
>>>”I suspect that white men have superior capabilities for the position of head football coach.
That’s the reason it works out that way.”
Do you feel that way, Andrew?
–Cobra
Cobra, your last post in response to Andrew (i.e. “Do you feel that way, Andrew”) was an unfair begging of the question and in some ways proved the (admittedly untactful) point of Stephen. The point is that you are turning something that isn’t a racial issue into a racial issue, and by your logic, anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. You also imply that anyone who opposes affirmative action, for whatever reason, is racist. This is unfair to those of us who oppose racism of all kinds, directed against anyone, and feel that quota systems will only further divide America.
The jump from “there aren’t many black coaches” to “all college athletic programs are racist” is a huge one, and not supported by the evidence. If there is a problem with institutional racism, why are there so many fine black athletes in division IA sports? Blacks are in fact overrepresented on the player level… should we have affirmative action to make sure enough white boys get to play wide receiver? Of course not, because the issue isn’t about racism. Black players don’t play because they’re black, they play because they’re good at it. White coaches don’t coach because they are white, they coach because they are good coaches. The hire of Detroit Lions head coach Steve Mariucci caused a fit because they didn’t offer the job to any black coaches, but do you honestly believe that this implies that the Lions organization is racist? They didn’t hire a black coach because there was only one coach they really wanted, Steve Mariucci, who happened to be white. There process was clearly not biased against non-whites, just biased against non-Steve Mariuccis.
The fact is that, in hyper competitive division IA sports, schools can’t afford to choose any but the most qualified coaches. This means that they have to choose the coach with the most experience and the most success. The fact that there are few black coaches with experience means that few will be hired. This isn’t to say that black men are incapable of coaching football, just that few have thus far gotten the experience necessary to succeed in high profile coaching positions. As black coaches continue to prove themselves and more black players retire and begin looking for coaching positions, I think we will see a natural growth in the hiring of black coaches. It might be a slow process, but in the end it will be healthier for the game and more fair to everyone.
This is precisely the fallacy behind much of the affirmative action argument. Underrepresentation does not automatically imply racism. Indeed, there is a problem with the underrepresentation of African-Americans in our colleges and corporations, but racism is not the major problem. The problem is that blacks and other minorities are disproportionately likely to be at economic disadvantage and to live in impoverished areas. This is, of course, a vicious cycle, because the fact that they are economically disadvantaged means they can’t easily complete college, and the fact that they can’t complete college means that they will be economically disadvantaged.
Still, it is ultimately economics, not race, that is the root cause of black underrepresentation (it certainly used to be racism, but most of those barriers really have been removed, despite what Al Sharpton might say). For example, it is ridiculous to argue that a black doctor’s son from a rich private school deserves affirmative action while a white kid from the poor inner city doesn’t. The fact that there are more poor black kids then poor white kids is irrelevant in this sense; the point is that coming from the ghetto is a better indication of being disadvantaged than having dark skin.
This means that the whole premise of affirmative action is itself racist: it assumes that having dark skin automatically makes one less capable and less advantaged. It boggles my mind that anyone could support a system that assumes that minorities are incapable of competing on even terms with whites (anyone seeing the large number of extremely intelligent Asian students here at the University of Michigan College of Engineering, where Asians are not benefited by affirmative action, could see that that is clearly not the case). It is a basic kindergarten lesson: two wrongs don’t make a right. Discriminating against whites now will not solve past discrimination against blacks. If anything, it will only serve to further increase racial tensions.
Instead, I propose a system designed to benefit the economically disadvantaged and improve education in poor areas. This would be a quantitative measurement and avoids the racism inherent in current affirmative action. It has all the benefits of affirmative action, since the fact that minorities are disproportionately poor would mean that such a system would naturally increase minority representation. By improving education for poor Americans, it would also benefit the economy as a whole and sustain itself.
Garrick, thanks for a post that makes some of the points I’d have liked to make, but far more decorously and gracefully than I would have.
I, too, would like to see racial affirmative action replaced by efforts to improve schooling for the poor, and possibly preferences for students from impoverished families. I am afraid that you will not get Cobra and those who think like him to agree to that, though. The Black educational-achievement gap evidently persists even at high income levels and with good schools. You can do a lot of good by improving lousy inner-city schools, but that isn’t all that’s going on here. What is going on is hard to determine, but it definitely isn’t all too little money and poor schools. (If it were, Black activists would be all for the “Top X%” plans used for college admissions in Texas and Florida, and they aren’t. Nor are they for class-based AA in general.)
Thanks Michelle.
Perhaps there is a problem beyond simple economics, but solving the gap between education for the poor and for the rich would go a long way towards solving the problems that affirmative action supposedly addresses.
As for what that problem is, I tend to think that it might have at least something to do with the victim mindset that today’s black leaders have instilled in the minds of black youth. As I said in my previous post, affirmative action as it stands today assumes that minorities are less capable and can’t compete. Perhaps by being told over and over again that they aren’t good enough by their supposed “supporters”, black students start to believe it. Also, what motivation is there to achieve, when Al Sharpton tells you that you’ll need lowered standards to get into college anyway? And, even if they work hard and do reach their goals, they will always have the nagging doubt and stigma, “Was I really good enough, or did I just make it because of affirmative action?”
Where is the hope that Martin Luther King gave to blacks? Today’s black activists (and many white liberals) instead preach that it’s okay to blame whites for all the world’s problems, and to presume that all whites are racists (visit http://www.noindoctrination.org for some disturbing examples of this). This can never be a good formula for creating a positive, truly diverse, multicultural environment.
Garrick writes:
>>>”The point is that you are turning something that isn’t a racial issue into a racial issue, and by your logic, anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. You also imply that anyone who opposes affirmative action, for whatever reason, is racist. This is unfair to those of us who oppose racism of all kinds, directed against anyone, and feel that quota systems will only further divide America.> “What black men really need from white men right now is a punch in the nose. Stop being afraid of monsters like Cobra who live solely to try to frighten, blackmail and extort.”>>”You also imply that anyone who opposes affirmative action, for whatever reason, is racist. This is unfair to those of us who oppose racism of all kinds, directed against anyone, and feel that quota systems will only further divide America.>>White coaches don’t coach because they are white, they coach because they are good coaches.http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/current_congrove_rankings.html
This is a link to a computer ranking of the top 117 College Football teams after this past weekend. You will notice that there are teams with great records, average records, and poor records. My point is, by PERFORMANCE RECORD, there is no way you can make that sweeping statement about white coaches, unless you have some OTHER level of criteria to judge them upon.
>>>This means that they have to choose the coach with the most experience and the most success. The fact that there are few black coaches with experience means that few will be hired. This isn’t to say that black men are incapable of coaching football, just that few have thus far gotten the experience necessary to succeed in high profile coaching positions. As black coaches continue to prove themselves and more black players retire and begin looking for coaching positions, I think we will see a natural growth in the hiring of black coaches.>>This is, of course, a vicious cycle, because the fact that they are economically disadvantaged means they can’t easily complete college, and the fact that they can’t complete college means that they will be economically disadvantaged.>>Black players don’t play because they’re black, they play because they’re good at it>>This is precisely the fallacy behind much of the affirmative action argument. Underrepresentation does not automatically imply racism.
Cobra just can’t stop grouping people together, can he? Instead of considering people as individuals, with their own strength and weaknesses, he has to see them as some kind of aggregate-but-uniform group as defined by their skin pigmentation levels.
How 20th century.
I propose we change the criteria. Let’s group everybody together based on hair color. We’ll have the blondes, brunettes, and redheads. Those who color their hair? They’re like those with mixed heritages, who can claim whichever they want. I propose we have a quota of redheads required in any workplace. After all, everyone knows redheads are impulsive and fiery-tempered. Got to balance those serious brunettes and air-headed blondes, you know.
This makes about as much sense as skin pigmentation.
Hey, I know! Let’s divide everyone based on shoe size! Yeah, that works! I bet Cobra is a 9 DD, based on the contents of all his posts. (Look out for those 5 AAAs, they’re sneaky!)
Did I say 20th century? How about 19th century? I mean, get over melanin levels already.
Cobra,
I still stand by my initial comment. The evidence you cite does nothing to prove unfair/biased/racist hiring practices.
I’m a mathematician at heart. I don’t like abuse of the simple rules of logic. The primary fallacy of your argument is that, knowing that A causes B, you say B was caused by A, which isn’t necessarily the case.
And yet again, get over it. You want respect? Earn it. I don’t appreciate being mocked, especially when you’re the one being intellectually fraudulent.
Cobra, thank you for a civil rebuttal. The “admittedly untactfaul” was meant to have a certain amount of irony, so don’t suppose I condone punching folks in the face.
Unfortunately, you commit the same fallacy against me that you did with Andrew earlier.
>>>Garrick, are you prepared to make the statement that you would have no question, issue or problem with underrepresentation in ANY situation?
This is completely unfair and assumes a ridiculous all-or-nothing attitude. I don’t have to be prepared to assert that there is never a problem with underrepresentation for my arguments to remain valid. Of course I would never say that underrepresentation is never bad, but I would also never claim that it is always indicative of racism. In fact, if you read on, you’ll note that I stated quite clearly:
>>> There is a problem with the underrepresentation of African-Americans in our colleges and corporations, but racism is not the major problem. The problem is that blacks and other minorities are disproportionately likely to be at economic disadvantage and to live in impoverished areas.
Any time you can prove to me that a person was not hired / admitted / given some reasonable advantage CLEARLY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE, I have a problem with that. Unfortunately, your statistics do not prove this. Indeed, such a scenario occurs far more often BECAUSE of affirmative action than in spite of it.
The fact is that your entire train of reasoning is based fallaciously upon an extremely hasty generalization, namely this: there are few black football coaches, therefore colleges are racist. Simply quoting statistics won’t prove this assertation. Statistically, I could “prove” that the NBA is racist because whites are underrepresented. This doesn’t make it true.
Performance DOES matter in college football- look at the turnover rate of coaches at the traditionally competitive IA schools and you’ll see what I mean. The win/loss column is colorblind. There is in fact very little loyalty, unless you’re Joe Paterno and have been coaching since tyrannosaurs played fullback. One or two bad seasons at a big name school and you’re out. The coaches that have been around forever (there really aren’t all that many any more) stay there not because of “old boy fraternalism” but because they maintain a consistently successful program.
I was, of course, not implying that ALL white coaches are good, or better than their black counterparts. That’s why they get fired so often when they screw up (some survive by being at programs that just aren’t competitive, but even then, not for long). What I meant was that white coaches are hired because their employers think they will be good coaches, not because they are white. Again, you commit the fallacy of attacking misrepresentations of some of my minor points (in this case a minor analogy) while ignoring the big picture of my arguments.
As for the vicious cycle, we are already coming out of it, though slowly. As I said, the number of black coaches will steadily increase as coaches like Ty Willingham and Sylvester Croom continue to prove themselves. I don’t think one could argue that Ron Zook’s whiteness gives him a better job outlook than Croom at this point. (I urge you to read the excellent ESPN article “Croom Definitely His Father’s Son” @ http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=curry_bill&id=1676150 He is an excellent example of a black man who was one of the first African Americans to play at post integration Alabama and now has made a name for himself as an extremely talented and successful coach)
Yes, it is difficult for black coaches to gain experience unless they are hired, but then, it’s difficult for a white guy who’s never coached in college to get a job at a top school too. What you havn’t proven is that it is more difficult for a black coach to get a job than it is for a white coach with similar experience and talent, and until you do, your entire argument holds no water.
Basically, the entire argument I’m trying to make boils down to this: underrepresentation of minorities in coaching positions is a problem, but you have yet to prove that racism is the cause of this problem. In any case, the solution is not to force schools to hire black coaches just because they’re black, as this will ultimately be bad for both the game and for the reputation of black coaches. It is also unfair to players (most of them black) to have a coach that is less qualified but politically safe because he’s black. The legal barriers to hiring blacks have been removed; now it’s up to black coaches to prove themselves. We should continue to punish blatant racism, but absent proof of that, let’s let pure merit and coaching skill decide.
Finally, you mentioned that not all opponents of affirmative action have pure motives, and that some are racists. Sadly, this is true. But it is also true that many supporters of affirmative action are themselves racist- their racism is not excused simply because they belong to a group that has traditionally been repressed. Indeed, the very basis of affirmative action has always been racist and based on outmoded stereotypes. It is sadly ironic that the basic assertation of affirmative action, namely that blacks are less capable and need special preferences to succeed, is an assumption that many Klansmen and segregationists would wholeheartedly agree with.
I am all for a level playing field, but what you are asking for is not a level field, it is a field tilted to favor blacks. This can never succeed in eliminating racism, because it requires racial discrimination to implement. We don’t live in a perfect world, but we can never make it perfect by tacking new imperfections on to old ones.
White men have become such pitiful cowards. A black man tells you he’s going to take your stuff, and you want to engage in a reasoned debate. I was precisely right in the beginning. The cowardice of white intellectual men is as much, if not more, of a problem than the racial extortion that has become the entire life of black men like Cobra.
The pitiful cowardice of white men has become an embarassment. I suggest once more that you find a gym, get yourself in shape and learn to fight. The white men who post to this board are an object lesson in how easily the racial extortionist can get what he wants.
My answer to Cobra. You aren’t going to steal my stuff. I’m coming to your house to steal your stuff. Call me whatever names you like. You are in for a fight when you mess around with me.
Now, men, try this attitude on. Stop being so damned reasonable. Learn to fight for your own stuff. Stop reasoning with extortionists and thieves. You will find, oddly, that this leads to respectful and decent relationships with black men who are worth knowing.
Garrick,
Another wonderful post that, again, says most of what I wanted to say, but much better than I would have. I don’t know how you came to this site (I don’t think I saw you posting until a day or two ago), but I do hope you stick around.
Lighten up, Stephen. This is a forum designed for reasonable debate. That’s why we engage in it here. Logic does not make one a coward. While there are black men who are racists and really do see affirmative action as nothing more than a handout and way to get back at “the man” (there are white men who fit this label as well), by slapping this label on all black men that you disagree with, you don’t come off any better. Cobra does not deserve the label of “extortionist” or “thief”. To say that his entire life is devoted to racial extortion based on a few posts on a blog is completely ridiculous. Neither you nor I knows him well enough to make that sort of judgement.
Advocating more black football coaches certainly doesn’t amount to stealing my stuff. I disagree with Cobra, but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna get with all my boys and go trash his pad. The fact that I’m not willing to resort to thuggery doesn’t mean that I’m “giving the racial extortionist what he wants”. No one is buying your baiting, so please take it somewhere else and let us resolve this debate in a civil fashion.
Thank you again for the compliment, Michelle. It is nice to see a site that brings some reasonability and dialogue into the convoluted, often illogical mess that race relations in this country have become. I hope that this site and others like it will help move us towards a day when we can live in true diversity of thought, with free and open debate without the chains imposed by excessive “political correctness”. Hopefully this country can realize that the only way to effectively quench racism is to eliminate all race based discrimination, no matter how well intentioned. By the way, I came across this site via Glenn Reynolds and Erin O’Connor. Keep up the good work.
Garrick, are you prepared to make the statement that you would have no question, issue or problem with underrepresentation in ANY situation?
Can I once again point out that I have a problem with the entire formulation? A member of Congress is a representative. A football coach is not. A black coach is not a “representative” of blacks; he and his black colleagues do not constitute “representation” of blacks. A white coach does not constitute “representation” of whites.
If a racist university athletic director won’t hire any of the black applicants for coaching jobs, then those people have been discriminated against, but black people are not “underrepresented” in the coaching ranks at the school.
The entire formulation turns a person into a mere symbol of his racial group, instead of an individual.
http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/ENDANGERED-SPECIES-STREAM.gif
I believe that reasonable people can disagree about topics, and debate them without insulting their opponnent. I know that I tend to frustrate some in here because I’m tenacious in my positions.
That being said, I think the reason we’ll NEVER agree on Affirmative Action is revealed in a couple of Garrick’s statements.
>>>I am all for a level playing field, but what you are asking for is not a level field, it is a field tilted to favor blacks. This can never succeed in eliminating racism, because it requires racial discrimination to implement. We don’t live in a perfect world, but we can never make it perfect by tacking new imperfections on to old ones.>>We should continue to punish blatant racism, but absent proof of that, let’s let pure merit and coaching skill decide.
Well, I for one am thrilled by this change of heart by Cobra in response to Garrick’s enjoyable and informative postings. I hope this new found civility will last past the first time he and others back Cobra into a corner or point out an obvious instance of black discrimination to test his sense of moral outrage. Hopefully we will all be spared the ‘Klansmen in nice clothes’ and ‘wishing for the days of lynching’ that he has answered with in the past.
Cynicism aside, Cobra, again you walk right into the line of fire with the not startling declaration that discrimination still exists in America. It does, but you are not looking to eliminate discrimination, obviously, otherwise you would not also be defending in other comments the public and ‘legal’ discrimination against the minority immigrant businesses in Detroit. You seem to want special rules, special standards, and most offensive to me, special dispensation to discriminate against others, including minority groups that face much larger hurdles than blacks (such as unfamiliarity with English). I’ll grant you that I will also no longer accept ‘legal’ discrimination against myself and my family, but your defense of discrimination by blacks against ‘other minority’ groups profoundly weakens the arguments you put forward.
Have you ever noticed how often the commentators you disparage are willing to acknowledge that blacks were terribly discriminated against? I have yet to read a remark by you that acknowledged that black racism/discrimination exists or simply that it would be wrong. I suspect the reason is that you feel it would weaken your arguments, an unenviable position. Or maybe you are just having fun at the expense of people who actually believe that discrimination is wrong.
Back to cynicism: Your concern for Native Americans is touching. Thank God for them that they are not in your hands in Detroit, where you would now be defending open discrimination against them for the sin of success.
I too welcome Garrick’s addition to the discussion. He has a fresh supply of patience that I lack and his remarks are obviously well thought out and eloquent. Right up there with Michele. Frankly, I don’t enjoy the black/white toe to toe arguments with Cobra that I am guilty of, but I don’t know how to NOT respond in that manner when I feel he is pushing blatantly hypocritical arguments.
Don’t be too discouraged by Stephen’s remarks. That ‘wake up white America’ type stuff is an aberration here. He is apparently the white version of the angry black man icon. I have read more rational postings by him and hope he will return to that form.
Sorry for the long posting.
The cowardice of white intellectual men has become a daily embarassment. The refined intellectual rationalizations of this cowardice do not fool me.
It makes me ashamed to be one. I’m glad that I live in a primarily Asian community. Asian men are not the cowards that white men are. I’m glad that I am married to an Asian woman. She refuses to allow me to be a coward in the way that has just become normal for a white man.
I guess that white intellectual men deserve to be the objects of derision, hatred and ridicule that they are.
You folks have certainly convinced me.
And Cobra,
Keep on playing these fools.
Hell, they’re liable to give you the deed to their house.
Take them for all you can get.
Here is another interesting article on black coach hiring in colleges.
>>> was lucky to be asked to co-author the autobiography of Grambling State’s Eddie Robinson with him. What more do we need to know about college football other than the fact that the all-time winingest coach in college football history, the coach who sent more student-athletes to the NFL than any other coach, a coach whose players graduated at a rate much higher than football student-athletes in general and who almost never got in trouble, was never interviewed by a predominantly white college.”” was lucky to be asked to co-author the autobiography of Grambling State’s Eddie Robinson with him. What more do we need to know about college football other than the fact that the all-time winingest coach in college football history, the coach who sent more student-athletes to the NFL than any other coach, a coach whose players graduated at a rate much higher than football student-athletes in general and who almost never got in trouble, was never interviewed by a predominantly white college. ”
Richard Lapchick,
http://www.sportinsociety.org/rel-article18.html
–Cobra
Cobra, thanks for the response.
I do agree with you that, fundamentally, we will never eliminate racism. Various studies have suggested that it is a natural instinct for humans to group and discriminate things based on superficial standards, a holdover from our evolutionary ancestors, to whom making quick distinctions between dangerous and harmless was the difference between life and death.
Where we differ is that I am firmly resolved that the correct response to past racism is not further discrimination. It is true that America has a very checkered past regarding race relations. However, the fundamental difference between now and then is that in the past, racial discrimination was the avowed legal position of government authorities. Slavery and Jim Crow were “legitimized” by government authority. After the 1964 Civil Rights Act, legal discrimination was abolished. This is of course not to say that all discrimination ended, but that the legal barriers to minority integration into society were removed.
With affirmative action, we have overstepped the line of equality and now favor discriminating against the majority in order to help blacks. This is simply the wrong approach. First, the argument that it is justified by past discrimination is unfair, as it punishes today’s citizens for the actions of their ancestors (something specifically prohibited in the constitution). Second, the argument that it is justified by current discrimination is false as it will neither eliminate prejudice (it will in fact fuel it) nor will it justify discriminating against whites and minorities not helped by affirmative action, most of whom are innocent of racism. Finally, even the relatively innocent sounding argument that affirmative action is meant to level the playing field or simply to get “proportionate representation” fails to withstand scrutiny, as the actual implementation of affirmative action still rests upon the fallacious grounds that “two wrongs make a right”.
Additionally, you make the incorrect presumption in you your arguments that only whites are guilty of racism. I have heard many supposedly learned people say the patent falsehood, “white men invented racism,” itself a decidedly racist comment. This is clearly not the case. All societies are guilty of racism. Natives in Africa and America both fought brutal tribal wars, just as Europeans fought amongst themselves. Even today in the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and a dozen other conflicted areas, people continue to kill people just because they are different- no less atrocious than racism even though the skin colors might be closer.
I think if we broke down the percentages (this is speculation but logical speculation) we would find that there are a similar percentage of overt racists in every racial group in America. It is never justified, but many minorities and their supporters seem to think that it is. We take it for granted that no one would come out and say, “I will never hire a minority for this position”, but in today’s society it is acceptable for someone to say, “I will only hire a minority for this position”. Why is this acceptable? If we were simply to switch the wording of the BCA’s test around to say, “70% of those you interview MUST be white” (this is only proportional representation, after all), there would be widespread outrage. Why do we tolerate this hypocrisy?
As for your article, while Eddie Robinson was a tremendous coach, he did start coaching at a time when racism was the sadly accepted norm, and things have changed a lot since 1941. In today’s situation, I think he would definitely have a better shot, but by the time he retired in 1997 he’d become such a part of Grambling that I doubt they would have let him leave.
What worries me about the article is the tremendous credence the author gives to percentages. 117 Division I coaches do not represent a statstically significant, nor random sample of Americans. So to suggest that the reduction in number of black coaches from six to four implied growing institutional racism is ridiculous. Even if there were thirty black coaches, five retiring in the same year (Dear Lord! A 15% drop!) could, by this standard, be construed as a sign of rampant “good old boy racism.”
The sad part of this whole debate is that the BCA, and society in general, has reduced the fine black coaches that are employed into mere racial tokens. This just serves to minimalize their achievements and will give an underserved bad reputation to black coaches if schools are forced by political pressure to start scrambling to find dark skinned coaches, whether they are qualified or not. I doubt that Sylvester Croom’s primary goal was to be the first black coach at Mississippi State. He wants to be the best coach at Mississippi State.
By punishing blatant racism, I mean that we should look at things on a case by case basis (just as we should treat people as individuals) rather than come to the grand conclusion that our whole society is still biased against blacks based on a few high profile examples. Outright racism might be difficult to prove, but then, so is murder. That doesn’t justify jumping to conclusions or making assumptions (like in the case of the Detroit Lions).
In any case, I doubt that the BCA would be defending white coaches or caring one whit about “proportional representation” if there were 80 black Division I coaches, and I don’t think that they would care at all if a white coach didn’t get an interview at a traditionally black school because of his race. This hypocrisy remains a fatal flaw in Cobra’s argument.
Garrick writes:
>>>I do agree with you that, fundamentally, we will never eliminate racism. Various studies have suggested that it is a natural instinct for humans to group and discriminate things based on superficial standards, a holdover from our evolutionary ancestors, to whom making quick distinctions between dangerous and harmless was the difference between life and death.>>Where we differ is that I am firmly resolved that the correct response to PAST racism is not further discrimination.”
You see, that is where you miss my entire argument for Affirmative Action.
Affirmative Action is designed to counteract racism and sexism that exists RIGHT NOW–the racism you so beautifully describe in your first paragraph. The same racism that you concede will never be eliminated.
The Cliff Notes version of American racial stratification reads that white, heterosexual, landowning males killed, conquered, enslaved and endentured their way to building a nation run exclusively for their own enrichment and promotion. During the CENTURIES, this self-imposed monopoly created a startling wealth and power gap between white landowning males, and every other group they oppressed. There is NEVER a question as to which social group is running America right now.
The equation is very simple. Connect the two –“Various studies have suggested that it is a natural instinct for humans to group and discriminate things based on superficial standards”
with intractable white male power in positions of authority, and you have a motus operandi– RACE AND SEX DISCRIMINATION, and thus the need for PROACTIVE REMEDIES.
Do I feel “undeserving” or “less” because I may get an opportunity that may not have presented itself because of Affirmative Action? Hell no. I don’t have to apologize for my minority status any more than a white person has to apologize for past injustices he or she had nothing to do with. Like Eddie Robinson, it really doesn’t matter what level of accomplishment or skill I reach, there will always be non-blacks who STILL won’t view me as an equal. My life isn’t based upon making strangers accept me. I just realize, with a smile on my face, that left upon “natural instincts”, we would see MORE discrimination in America, and not less. You say so yourself in your first paragraph.
Leeches are sometimes used to clense poisons from the bloodstream in some cultures. It’s not the prettiest thing to witness, but neccessary when there is no other viable alternative. Affirmative Action is the tiny leech that attempts to counteract racism and sexism that courses through the veins of America today.
–Cobra
I think it is important to realize that there are many black Americans, a majority I feel, that reject the false pride that Cobra feels in getting what he has not earned. They are the future for black Americans and Cobra’s anti-black prejudice in holding ‘whites’ to a high standard while admitting no standard for blacks is a thing of the past. I remember the local NAACP official in Maryland who publicly warned, in response to welfare reform proposals several years ago, that blacks “have a lot of guns” and would not allow the reforms to stand. The black community wholeheartedly rejected her call to violence as insulting to them. And almost all Marylanders, including black leaders, have praised the reforms.
Don’t forget, Cobra. ( I certainly will not.) You are the one that defended the majority black Detroit community’s attempts to impose discrimination against the immigrant minority communities. So your lectures about past acts of racism by whites only serve to accent a very poor comparison between how whites deal with injustice today and how people of your ilk wish to deal with minorities. Because of a wish to maintain civility, most commentators here refuse to make direct comparisons between ‘white’ and ‘black’ cultures, but no one is ignorant of the state of affairs in Africa, where governments have to send out pleas to their citizens to discontinue the practice of raping young girls as a cure for AIDS. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not equating you with Africans, after all African Americans have had their African cultural roots poisoned by American culture.
You need to check your Cliff Notes more closely, Cobra, lest you continue to provide ammunition for your antagonists. Citing white ‘heterosexual male’ oppression might have got you an “A” in Victimology 101, but in the real world it only serves to point out deficiencies in the black community where women are much more likely to, by necessity and not choice, be sole providers, have formal educations and careers and raise children alone. While this leaves black women with much to be proud of, it also earns black males a great deal of criticism for abandoning their roles as fathers, providers and positive role models. And ‘heterosexual’?? Do you really want to do a comparison between black male and white male culture in regards to sexual preferences? Even black leaders acknowledge that true homophobia is rampant among black males. While ‘white male America’ is arguing over whether traditional marriage is homophobic, ‘black male America’ is debating over whether to castrate or just break bones. Give me a break.
Eddie Robinson was a great coach, the greatest black coach certainly and may have been the greatest coach in college football. But we will never know because by the time racial barriers had been breached in college football, Eddie Robinson had made it clear that he would never leave Grambling State. Again you call up past acts of discrimination as proof that it is pervasive today, while you demand that discrimination be employed to provide you with that which you wish not to earn. Eddie Robinson is and was a great role model for anyone looking for positive examples of self pride, dignity, hard work, dedication and self-responsibility. Those words are inspiring to me, and his example is humbling, to be honest. How about you? Do they inspire you or make you feel uncomfortable?
Pride is enabling, false pride is crippling.
MikeM writes:
>>>I think it is important to realize that there are many black Americans, a majority I feel, that reject the false pride that Cobra feels in getting what he has not earned.>>Don’t forget, Cobra. ( I certainly will not.) You are the one that defended the majority black Detroit community’s attempts to impose discrimination against the immigrant minority communities.>>Because of a wish to maintain civility, most commentators here refuse to make direct comparisons between ‘white’ and ‘black’ cultures, but no one is ignorant of the state of affairs in Africa, where governments have to send out pleas to their citizens to discontinue the practice of raping young girls as a cure for AIDS. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not equating you with Africans, after all African Americans have had their African cultural roots poisoned by American culture.>>Citing white ‘heterosexual male’ oppression might have got you an “A” in Victimology 101, but in the real world it only serves to point out deficiencies in the black community where women are much more likely to, by necessity and not choice, be sole providers, have formal educations and careers and raise children alone. >>While ‘white male America’ is arguing over whether traditional marriage is homophobic, ‘black male America’ is debating over whether to castrate or just break bones. Give me a break.
The U.S. is the least “sexist and racist” society in the history of humanity.
This is indisputable.
What in the world are you talking about, Cobra? You are talking nonsense. Some of the most foolish, childish nonsense I’ve ever heard.
One of my favorite theories of the feminist crowd is that women were “oppressed” because they didn’t have the vote until 1920.
My family is a pretty good example of the truth here. The great wave of European migration was from about 1880 to 1920. My great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers were among that wave. They were Irish and Welsh. They fled Ireland and Wales to escape starvation in the potato famines. Their passage to the U.S. took place in what were called “coffin ships” since so many passengers died en route.
No member of my family had experienced the voting franchise until well into the 1890s. This is only 30 years before women obtained the franchise. It is a testament to the character and integrity of the men in my family that they supported women in gaining the franchise barely one generation after they obtained it.
This is pretty much the story of the vast majority of American families. Cobra’s attempts to spin this into the fantasy world of “oppression” are laughable.
Stephen writes:
>>>No member of my family had experienced the voting franchise until well into the 1890s. This is only 30 years before women obtained the franchise. It is a testament to the character and integrity of the men in my family that they supported women in gaining the franchise barely one generation after they obtained it.>>The U.S. is the least “sexist and racist” society in the history of humanity.
This is indisputable.
I wish to maintain civility as well, Mike. I will not sit here and put out a laundry list of atrocious subjects attributed to 搘hite culture?from Hitler to NAMBLA to putting small pox in Native American blankets. Just realize your own folly when you mention one problem in a particular group as a tactic to imply racial/cultural superiority.
六合彩
I’ve had some time to read through some of your older posts, Cobra, and I think I understand you a little better.
You are right that there is still racism in this society. Yes, there are some racist white men in positions of power. Yes, the United States has committed racial atrocities throughout its history. Some degree of cynicism is justified; it has only been 40 years after the passing of the Civil Rights Act. However, there really have been great strides in civil rights in our history. We do still have a ways to go, but we already have come a long way.
Your mistake is in assuming that all white men are racists. We’re not. In fact, the majority of white men really do believe in equality for everyone. Not all, certainly, but the vast majority. Your generalization is no more fair than if I were to say, “Most black men are criminals,” based on the fact that some are. It’s an unfair generalization, and ignores the sacrifices and efforts of countless black and white men and women to earn what equality we have.
Let me lay out my case against against affirmative action from a slightly different angle. First, let’s make a few reasonable observations.
1) The only people who directly benefit from affirmative action are those who wouldn’t have been accepted/hired otherwise.
This makes sense. Hiring and college admissions are a win/lose proposition- you can’t be 30% hired. For example, if a black student meets a college’s normal admissions requirements, he’ll get let in, even without affirmative action. So, logically, the only minority students/applicants who are aided by affirmative action are those who got in because of their race. I don’t mean this to be at all offensive, but it’s a simple fact of the operation.
2) Affirmative action is not victimless.
Admissions is a zero-sum game. There are more applicants than available positions in most cases. Keeping observation 1 in mind, this means that an otherwise qualified non minority student is rejected in favor of a minority student who wouldn’t have otherwise been accepted.
3) The victims of affirmative action are not the racial offenders.
Let’s say there the human resources manager of Acme Corp. is a white man who happens to be an avowed racist. However, the “proactive” supporters of affirmative action have passed a law requiring him to hire 20% African American employees. He begrudgingly agrees to hire some “black folk”, but a well-qualified white applicant, who has always done his best to be racially sensitive, is rejected. The HR manager gets to go on being racist, but the white applicant is now unemployed because of his skin color.
You see here the obvious problem. The racist manager has nothing to lose by being racist, but the innocent white applicant has everything to lose. The innocent are punished in the name of “fairness.”
Another example: I’m a student at the University of Michigan, with a well publicized affirmative action program. What if I had been rejected based on my race? I’m not a racist, so how would rejecting me have been a “proactive remedy” for sex and race discrimination? How is rejecting any hopeful student a proactive remedy? You often pose the absolute question so I’ll give you one: Would you be willing to tell an innocent, bright-eyed, hopeful white student who’d worked hard for years to get into the school he idolized that he was rejected, not because he was unqualified, but because his skin wasn’t dark enough? You said you wouldn’t feel bad about accepting the benefit of affirmative action, so could you do that? That you felt that you deserved it more, because you’re black?
4) Racial discrimination is already illegal.
Racial discrimination in employment and college admissions was banned 4 decades ago. This doesn’t mean it has gone away entirely. What it does mean is that anyone conciously discriminating is breaking the law, and won’t think twice about circumventing affirmative action laws. Therefore, the only individuals who will be punished are the law abiding individuals who weren’t even racist to begin with and those who are trying just as hard to get a good job/education. The “powerful, rich, heterosexual white men” won’t suffer at all. What if a black owned business is forced to hire an underqualified minority employee, leaving the business less competitive, because affirmative action won’t let them hire a qualified white man?
You said in a previous post that you wouldn’t care at all if a bum on the street hurled a racial epithet at you, because he has no power over you. So why do you support a “proactive remedy” that only actually punishes those who have no power over you (most of whom have nothing against you)?
The real truth of the matter is that whites have been exploited by those in power too. Irish, Catholics, and Jews have been persecuted. Sharecroppers were exploited… they weren’t slaves, but their position wasn’t much better. I’m Polish; the Poles were persecuted and slaughtered in Europe for centuries. Racial minorities don’t own the exclusive right to the title of victim. But now, finally, we live in a country where, at least in the law, all are created equal.
But you would favor a policy that writes racial discrimination back into the law. Of course, you feel that this discrimination is justified. But then, haven’t all discriminators thought their actions justified? Racial discrimination is wrong, period. No “however,” “but some is less wrong than the rest,” or “it’s just a proactive remedy.”
Will racism ever go away completely? No. But, despite your pessimism, we have made great progress towards relegating this base instinct to the fringe elements of the unenlightened and close-minded. Society has changed, we may finally be learning from our mistakes. Despite your cynicism, most whites do want to see a world of equal opportunity. But in order for that to happen, we simply cannot allow discrimination to establish itself in our laws, for that would establish a dangerous precedent that would endanger what progress we have made. It would be a precedent that spits in the face of the dream that Martin Luther King gave his life for, the dream that people could one day be judged “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” If we can justify this discrimination, what discrimination will we not find a reason to justify? No, we cannot support any judgement based on melanin, whatever the “justification”.
We must build trust and openness between the races. America must become the melting pot it was meant to be. In such a world, the voices of racism and hatred would be drowned out by the united majority- and by majority I don’t mean white, I mean a truly diverse group that respected each other as individuals and not mere symbols of race. Affirmative action drives a wedge between cultures, forcing black to compete against white, man against woman. It feeds upon our cynicism. Beyond that, it cannot even solve the problem it was meant to. It will only polarize the racists and make the innocent question their moderation. Perhaps it might give everyone “proportional representation,” but what good is being “diverse” when everyone is too afraid and distrustful to share their diversity? How diverse are we really if our definition of diversity is dividing everyone up into neat little groups and making sure the percentages are right? What good is it to answer persecution with persecution? How can we pursue justice and equality by writing a law that forces us to implement inequality?
Cobra, you’re a person with strong convictions who wants his race to have a fair shot, and I respect that. However, your desire for vengeance as expressed in your posts has clouded your judgement and threatens to turn you into that which you hate most: someone who mistrusts another human being because of the color of their skin. If you wish to become a lawyer and prosecute some ignorant racist for violating the civil rights act, then by all means do so. But don’t advocate the punishment of those who have done you no harm in the name of “justice.” You’re a better man than that.