Given all the ensuing (in suing?) and continuing discussion over the Supremes’ Grutter decision that allowed the consideration of race in admissions, it is easy to forget that Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher won their case against Michigan’s use of racial bonus points in undergraduate admissions.
Depending on what happens in a new suit the Center for Individual Rights has filed on their behalf, it may be harder to forget them in the future.
Lawyers for two white students who sued the University of Michigan claiming they were denied admission in favor of less-qualified minorities have asked a federal judge to award damages to 30,000 other white and Asian students, who also may have been illegally denied admission.
The motion, filed with U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan in Detroit late Wednesday, is seeking nominal damages of $1 for the nonminority students whose applications were rejected between 1995 and 2003 and asking U-M to refund their application fees.
The lawyers also are asking U-M to reimburse some of those students who may have attended a more expensive school after being rejected by U-M and compensate them for emotional distress, according to court records.
….
The motion filed Wednesday could cost U-M millions of dollars but because of a lengthy appeals process it could be years before students see any money, according to legal experts.
Michigan’s response was, I think, quite revealing:
U-M spokeswoman Julie Peterson said because the high court upheld the use of race in a similar case against its law school that the request for damages is unwarranted.
Hmm. So, now Michigan concedes that its law school’s use of finely tuned, dare we say nuanced treatment of race as one of many factors considered in admissions was really no different from the rigid racial bonus points that had been used in undergraduate admissions?
Who do the 2000 underrepresented minorities who had higher grades or SATs than Gratz get to sue for not being admitted to Michigan in 1994? This second lawsuit is even further proof that this is far more about white societal entitlement than equal opportunity, which was my problem with Jennifer Gratz and her crusade from the beginning.
–Cobra
Actually, it’s about opposing black entitlement. I hope she wins, and that U-M has to pay lots of money to all those kids that they discriminated against because they weren’t black.
Discrimination because of race is WRONG. It doesn’t matter whether you are black, white, red, or yellow. Discriminating for or against you merely because of your skin pigmentation is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
And it must be stopped.
It’s almost funny to see the racial bigots whining and yelling in dismay as their own weapon is turned agsint them. Does having a crime committed against you entitle you to commit a crime in turn against another? Do two wrongs really make a right? Only if you’re a believer in affirmative action.
cobra,
How can you make your claim while the testimonry in the case showed that if Gratz had just checked the “african-American” box she would have been a shoe-in for admission and probably given a scholarship?
Superdestroyer,
Maybe you didn’t read the FACTS, but if 2000—TWO THOUSAND UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES…which includes BLACKS, HISPANICS, and NATIVE AMERICANS, with HIGHER GRADES or SATs THAN GRATZ were ALSO REJECTED from the U OF MICHIGAN in 1994, please tell me HOW….HOW…HOW Jennifer Gratz was a “shoe-in” for Admission if she checked the box for African American?
You defy LOGIC. That is, unless you believe that EVERY WHITE KID who APPLIES TO MICHIGAN has some form of MANIFEST DESTINY, and should automatically be ACCEPTED. What IS it with you people? Where does the arbitrary number of 30,000 come from? Are they just assuming that EVERY non-white FACE that ever attended the U of M the past 10 years DIDN’T DESERVE TO BE THERE, or SUPPLANTED a white kid?
What ARE you talking about, Super?
Claire writes:
>>>It’s almost funny to see the racial bigots whining and yelling in dismay as their own weapon is turned agsint them. Does having a crime committed against you entitle you to commit a crime in turn against another? Do two wrongs really make a right? Only if you’re a believer in affirmative action.”
Are you saying that it’s a “crime” whenever a white person doesn’t get what he or she feels entitled to?
–Cobra
Cobra,
How soon they forget? Remember, Michigan was caught red handed with a 100 point admission systems for whites and asians and a 80 point system for blacks, hispanics, and American indians. If Gratz hand just checked the “African-American” box, she would have been admitted under the 80 point system, been given special mentoring programs, given speical orientation, etc. Such a system used to be called “Jim Crow”, now it is just called “affrimative action” or “diversity.”
Even today UMich has programs for blacks only such as reported in the Detriot News: “Michhigan is beefing up efforts to reach out to minority students by visiting more high schools with large minority populations and showcasing a welcoming environment for minority students.”
My question to you, if diversity is so important to African-Americans then why aren’t Florida A&M, Howard, or Grambling St recruiters visiting more high schools with large white or asian populations and trying to get them to attend the HBU’s?
‘Such a system used to be called “Jim Crow”, now it is just called “affrimative action” or “diversity.”‘
No jim crow was different. Jim Crow was about denying rights of citizenship — including not only private segregation but also political and legal power — enforced via state supported (if not just tolerated) terror. It was inflicted upon a minority by the majority.
This is a system about the majority choosing to handicap itself in favor of a minority. There may be some mechanical similarities, but the moral ones are very different.
The way to explain the 2000 minorities with higher scores than Gratz who didn’t get in is because the points system didn’t rest solely on grades and race. You got 20 points for being a minority and up to 80 points for grades (assuming 4.0 and and perfect SAT/ACT scores). However, you also got points for various other factors (about 50 points total, I think), including region (Michigan students got a bonus(they paid the taxes, after all)), extracurriculars, an essay, etc.
I don’t know the numbers exactly, but hypothetically, it could have worked something like this:
Gratz gets 60 points for academics, plus 20 points for other factors, taking her to 80 points. Checking “african american” gives her the 20 points needed to go to 100 and be admitted.
A minority student gets 65 academic points, but only 10 other points (perhaps they were out of state or didn’t participate in as many extracurriculars). Checking “african american/ native american/ hispanic (but not Asian because Asians apparently aren’t a minority) gives them 20 points, but this only takes them to 95 points, so they get rejected.
This, without defying logic or arguing manifest destiny (but with a generous dose of “FACTS” and basic arithmetic) provides a way for Gratz to be a “shoe in” as a minority while still rejecting higher scoring minorities.
The plaintiffs didn’t ask for special, advantageous treatment (though that’s what aff. action proponents want for minorities)- they asked for equal treatment. Cobra, please explain to me again how asking to not be treated differently because of your race is equivalent to arguing for “white entitlement”? I’m having a little trouble comprehending that without defying “LOGIC”.
If “white entitlement” means being entitled to the same standards as minorities, then I, too, would argue for white entitlement. Everyone, regardless of race, is entitled to that much.
That being said, I hope Gratz lightens up so U of M has enough money for me to complete my degree ;)
Actus,
I disagree. Too much of divesity today rings of Jim Crow. There used to be separate drinking fountains, now thre are separate admission programs. Remember that under Bakke, the Univ. of California was shown to be sorting applications by race. In Jim Crow there were separate waiting rooms. Now blacks get separate intern programs, dorms, mentoring programs, student unions, and at some universities, classes; in addition to different admission criteria.
I still think that it is ironic, that fifty years after the Supreme Court said that Separate is Unequal, that African American went in front of the Supreme Court and argued for Separate and unequal treatment is not only legal but should be federal policy.
Also, Gratz and the other students had no say in whether they wanted to have a higher admission standard being applied due to being white. It is no different than the blacks in the Jim Crow south having no say in what rules they had to follow.
I wonder how many of the pro-diverity whites would consent to having different admission standards apply before admission. My guess is very few.
‘Also, Gratz and the other students had no say in whether they wanted to have a higher admission standard being applied due to being white. It is no different than the blacks in the Jim Crow south having no say in what rules they had to follow.’
I also ‘have no say’ in a lot of things. But back to affirmative action.
Its very different. Gratz and Grutter, for example, aren’t getting killed, aren’t having their churches burned, and aren’t being strung up a tree.
The only thing that is similar is that racial considerations are still being made, and that some people are losing because of them. Your ‘just like jim crow’ is a pathetic attempt to capture the moral outrage at a much more invidious discrimination. One motivated by animus, hate and dominance, rather than one motivated by other factors.
If you can’t see the difference between jim crow — with its terror, violence, and death — and 20 extra points on an admissions to college, then perhaps you’re never going to get the point of affirmative action anyway.
Actus writes:
>>>If you can’t see the difference between jim crow — with its terror, violence, and death — and 20 extra points on an admissions to college, then perhaps you’re never going to get the point of affirmative action anyway.”
Well my friend, that’s the rub. No amount of factual testimony to the state of anti-minority discrimination past of present in America will EVER seem to explain the need for Affirmative Action to many of the posters here. Believe me, I’ve tried. Some of my posts here detailing the continuing bias against African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans have been over 10 pages long (my apologies, John.) But it doesn’t mean a thing to them, nor did I expect it to. I’ve come to the conclusion that this debate is more about whose ox is being gored than any morality or ethics struggle.
–Cobra
Question: How many recent affirmative action beneficiaries were “strung up a tree?”
Appeals to emotion are trite when such appeals rely on activities that were not experienced by the appealer.
But then again, how many times, after a minority simply took one look at me, have I been called “a rich, white, protestant male?” Ironic when you consider that I’m Catholic and quite poor.
Here’s where the disdain comes in: we go to college and we see folks that have everything better for them: special grading criteria, special tutoring, special peer advisers, special tuition aid, special minority-only mailing lists, special program offices, special introductory courses…special, special, special. Where’s my help?
While those that are so “underprivileged” drive their nice cars around while they talk on their cell phones, I am left to take the bus and converse only by my university provided dorm phone.
That’s where the animosity comes in. Too many have it too good for no good reason. And, meanwhile, there are those that sit silently depressed as they see a world that has been purposely rigged against them.
‘Appeals to emotion are trite when such appeals rely on activities that were not experienced by the appealer.’
I think you understand the point of why I disagree with the ‘just like Jim Crow’ sort of language.
For once I agree with you Actus. But there’s some other stuff I said in there that’s important too.
Black people were killed, yes. I know about the Ku Klux Klan and all that. (How could I not when the “evil of the white man” mentality is everywhere nowadays?) I know about slavery… anti-immigrant riots… the trail of tears… (those were MY ancestors–Cherokee. And my white ancestors forcing them to march, too…)
Why does this matter anymore? Haven’t we really gotten past all that? Were you, Cobra, or you, actus, terrorized or brutalized by evil white men? Was I forced into a reservation? I don’t think so. Just because it happened to your ancestors doesn’t mean you should be treated any differently to make up for something that didn’t actually happen TO you.
It may not be “exactly” like Jim Crow, but there is at least one big similarity: discrimination. Just because the discrimination isn’t as violent doesn’t make it any less wrong–and it doesn’t make it any more necessary.
Actus and Cobra,
If past racial violence was a reason for racial discrimination, then the children of Reginald Denny would be the one’s receiving the special consideration instead of the children of Damian Williams. But under the University of Michigan “Diversity” system the exact opposite happens.
Also, if you remember, Jim Crow was a set of laws and regulations to treat Americans different due to race. How can state governments in 2004 have laws that treat different races differently without invoking the memory of Jim Crow.
“Statistically, the “average” African American is an astonishing 56 times more likely to attack a white than vice versa. In one recent year, approximately 100 black women were raped by white men; the corresponding number of white women raped by black men was over 20,000,” according to Dinesh D
Stephen writes:
>>>In one recent year, approximately 100 black women were raped by white men; the corresponding number of white women raped by black men was over 20,000,” according to Dinesh D
Cobra,
While the ugly facts of this nation’s racial injustices in the past are rightly to be condemned (and need to be addressed in some manner), the Supreme Court has said that that is not a sufficent or compelling state interest to reward or punish based upon race in college admissions. So, no matter how hard you argue that point, it is moot to this discussion.
As to the impalement of oxen, your posts convey plenty of concern for your team, but less so for paler varieties.
Legally imposed segregation and discrimination were wrong because it is wrong to impose burdens on individuals because of their race.
If it is not wrong to impose burdens on people because of their race, what was wrong with segregation?
Stephen is race-baiting once again – repeating a charge that one often sees on White Supremacist sites. In his post above he states that “In one recent year, approximately 100 black women were raped by white men; the corresponding number of white women raped by black men was over 20,000,”. He offers this statistic as proof that a black “reign of terror” has desecended upon poor guilt ridden whites. What he fails to mention is that simple elementary statistics dictate that a minority population will always commit a disproportionate amount of crimes on the majority it lives amongst. Consider this example:
There are 10 people in a population – 9 of them are white, one of them is black (90% white, 10% black – which is very close to the percentage of actual blacks in the population). Now imagine that each of those persons commits a crime against everyone else in that population. The net effect being that the criminal has chosen their victim at random. There will be a total of 90 crimes.
81 of them will be White on White.
9 of them will Black on Whie.
The probability of a White commiting a crime on another white is 90%(81/90). The probability of a White commiting a crime on a black is 10% (9/90). On the other hand the probability of a black commiting a crime against a white is (9/9) or a whopping 100%. In other words, if a criminal chooses a victim at random from a population in which he is a minority, a disproportionate amount of their crimes will be against members of the majority. That disproportionality will be a function of their percentage in the population.
“Stephen is race-baiting once again – repeating a charge that one often sees on White Supremacist sites.”
The stupidity of this comment is obvious. What James means is: white attacks on blacks are a form of group guilt; black attacks on whites are not. You can see from James’ comments that actual thought is foreign to him. Probably, it is impossible.
So, Actus, Cobra, James. I consider all black attacks on whites to be a form of group terrorism. And, I am owed, as a member of the offended group.
The practice of calling those who disagree with you, James, white supremacists is one of the most disgusting and condemnable out there. What it means, as you post makes obvious, is that you have nothing to say.
I’m into group guilt, Actus and Cobra. Where’s my payoff? You can argue for yours all you want. I don’t care about your payoff. I’m interested in mine.
And, James, thou great god of racial justice.
What are you actually doing, other than blowing hot air and preening your halo?
What is your great contribution? What have you decided to give up so that others, who you’ve deemed to be more important to both me and you, can have? Please be specific. I mean something more than having sainted thoughts.
What are your credentials, oh holy one?
James,
The flaw in your scenario that makes its conclusion invalid, is that every member of your population commits a crime against another memeber. This is not the way in which crime actually occurs in the US (and probably everywhere else). Crimes are not random events. The actors choose to commit crimes and choose their victims. Your example also ignores the fact that criminals commit many crimes.
Nice try, and I do agree that Stephen’s posts carry not a little whiff of animosity.
Thanks, nobody, and here’s an even more amusing way to put it.
James and Actus, I’m willing to bet any amount of money are white.
So, it is evidence of high morals and great intellect for whites to argue that blacks should always get, and whites should always be punished. (In fact, in a bizarre way, the best method for being rewarded within the white liberal community is to do this. For instance, in a field where there are virtually no blacks (say English lit), the best way to advance one’s self is to argue the self-defeating crap argued by James and Actus. This provides the dual advantage of advancing one’s self while pretending to do the opposite.)
Amazingly, the sign of great intellect and moral fiber for a black is to argue that he or she is always owed and whites should always be punished. Thus, Cobra is a saint for constantly arguing that he should get the swag.
Quite a game. Charming. I got tired of it a long time ago. I’m for me being owed. Don’t care about anybody else’s complaint. Send the swag to me.
Nobody Important
My reasoning holds up to your criticism. Consider this reworking of my example –
There is a non-criminal (victim) population of 10 people – 9 whites and 1 black.
Now lets say there are two criminals in the criminal population – one white and one black. Therefore, the criminal population is disproportionately black (by a factor of 5 (50%)). If each of the criminals commits a crime against the non-criminal poulation these are the results that we will see:
9 white on white crimes, 1 white on black crime
9 black on white crimes, 1 black on black crime.
Therefore, the black criminal, by choosing his victims without regards to race, is automatically 9 times more likely to commit a crime against whites, than the other way around.
Therefore, the statistic that Stephen cites is NOT PROOF that blacks are targeting whites for criminal activity.
I suspect what I would find if I pulled up these statistics on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports is that black criminals are slightly more likely to choose their victims at random and white criminals are much more likely to choose other Whites as victims.
Cobra, the fact of the matter is, in the U of M case, being a URM was worth the same amount as a perfect SAT score. Therefore, it’s highly doubtful that any URM’s were displaced with higher #’s than Gratz. If they were, they obviously didn’t belong there either.
“Its very different. Gratz and Grutter, for example, aren’t getting killed, aren’t having their churches burned, and aren’t being strung up a tree.”
None of this was technically allowed under Jim Crow, any more than Black crime today is permitted under affirmative action.
What is similar, and very analagous, is the fact that the government is treating people differently for no reason other than their ethnicity, whatever the motive.
P.S.: James, your logic doesn’t really follow, which I’m sure you’ll see if you add the math.
Cobra — your logic really doesn’t follow. You can obviously have higher grades OR SAT scores and still have a mediocre package not deserving of admission. Please open your mind for a change to views beyond your own.
Actus: I don’t really consider a bunch of white liberal elitists the “majority”, and the fact that Democrats continue to lose elections indicates that the people who support affirmative action are not, fortunately, in the majority. Therefore, I hardly consider this kind of discrimination “self-imposed”.
Does the fact that most URM’s who benefitted at Michigan have higher household incomes than the average white person affect your perception at all? Or is it all about color to you? Very progressive of you.
PPS:
Cobra, et al: I can understand the idea that people from poorer backgrounds should perhaps have that taken into consideration in applications. However, can you please explain to me why a wealthy URM should have a preference over a working-class or poor white/asian? Do you not see how the current structure of preferential admissions just poisons relations further, and reinforces ethnic divisions? Do you really feel wealthy hispanics deserve huge admissions boosts? Can you at least propose an affirmative action system that would at least make a little sense? (I.e., one completely class-based, or only applied to poorer URM’s?) Thanks.
James, your posts are nonsense and you’ve avoided the question.
I’ll bet you are a white guy. Why in the world are you arguing for whites to be villifed, and why do you think it is a virtue for you to do so? I think it makes you look like a fool. I know that it is sanctified leftist theology to do so. Frankly, I think it reeks of condescension and opportunism. Blacks now how to plead their own cause.
I wouldn’t let you count change in a laundromat, given your statistical abilities.
Now, try answering one of my questions, instead of reciting the standard Cathecism. Why are you so invested in this phony attempt to excuse black on white crime? (I’ll answer. You don’t know. It’s just what a “good” liberal is s’pozed to do.) And, if you really believe that crap you’re talking, let’s take a walk through Bed-Stuy together.
An Anonymous poster at 2:21 PM writes:
>>>Cobra — your logic really doesn’t follow. You can obviously have higher grades OR SAT scores and still have a mediocre package not deserving of admission. Please open your mind for a change to views beyond your own.”
Excuse me…why are you asking ME that question, when under that VERY SAME SCENARIO, Jennifer Gratz filed a lawsuit against the only school she applied to, taking it all the way the Supreme Court. She is the text book definition of the phrase, “making a federal case out of it.”
My question was pointing out the OBVIOUSLY hypocrisy represented by many posters in here who believe that a perceived unfairness against whites is intolerable, but the same against minorities, especially black people either doesn’t exist, or isn’t worthy of preventive societal counter-balancing.
In other words, I don’t believe many anti-Affirmative Action types who blog here lose much sleep over any of the documented instances of anti-minority bias I detail. That is evident in your responses. Apparently, the greatest evil that can exist in America is a white Christian heterosexual male not getting what he feels he is endowed by his Creator to be entitled to.
Makes you wonder WHY people like myself don’t concede, retreat or surrender from support of Affirmative Action, huh?
–Cobra
Oh, Lord, can’t we lay the old black-on-white/white-on-black thing to rest already?
Look, assume a society 10% A, 90% B. Assume 10% of both groups are criminals, and they victimize other people without regard to group. Out of a group of 100, say (10 As, 90 Bs), you’d then expect one A criminal, 9/10 of whose targets are A. Odds are very strong that his random victim is B. You’d also have 9 B criminals, whose victims would also be mostly B, because that’s what most of the population is.
In this scenario the overal amount of A-on-B crime is the same as the amount of B-on-A crime, but the fraction of A-on-B crime as total of A crime is a hell of a lot bigger than the fraction of B crime that’s B-on-A. Clear?
The complications in real life: The black rate of violent crime is generally higher than the white rate; and a disproportionate amount of black violent crime is against other blacks. There are perfectly obvious economic, cultural, and geographical reasons for this. For similar reasons, a disproportionate amount of white violent crime is against other whites.
What you cannot infer from numbers such as Stephen’s is that blacks disproportionally target whites as crime victims. If you want a real measure of “targeting,” compare the fraction of black crimes where the victim is also black with the proportion of the US population that is black. If you are right that blacks disproportionately attack whites, the first fraction will be smaller, yes? Well, try looking it up. I don’t think you will get the answer you want.
Actually, a perfect SAT score was worth only 12 points at Michigan.
As to interracial crime, if blacks target anybody it is other blacks (statistically, that is; obviously there are individual examples), because about half of the victims of black criminals are black. In reality, though, most crime is opportunist, committed against people around you.
However, the black crime rate is so much higher than the white rate (around 10 to 1 IIRC) that from the viewpoint of a potential victim, the race of the person committing a crime is disproportionately black (a calculation made not only by whites, but also, famously, by the Rev. Jesse Jackson).
Cobra, you are precisely correct.
I don’t give a damn about whether you get what you want. And you don’t give a damn about whether I get what I want.
And I don’t buy your sanctimonious attempts to clothe your self-interest in this stew of gratuitous, invented political complaints.
You haven’t got a complaint. You don’t deserve a damned thing more than I deserve. You can’t con me.
I skim through your attempts to clothe your self-interest in righteouness, and mostly ignore it. It’s crap.
Michelle, once again, I cannot fathom why you are engaged in this exercise. It is one of the fascinating delusional discussions of modern liberalism. You are apparently unable to see the proverbial elephant in the living room. And you obviously take some pride in it.
I just went to the FBI statistics again. Perpetrators of murders in 2003: whites: 5,729, blacks: 5,132. This doesn’t even take into account inter-racial murders.
Sure, blacks men kill one another with mind-numbing frequency. However, other correspondents to the site have assured us that they know that white on black crime is proof of a conspiracy among whites to oppress blacks. The statistics prove precisely the opposite. If you are going to make that argument, then it follows as night follows day to argue that black men are using criminal violence to inspire fear in whites.
Keep ignoring the elephant, Michelle. Can I interest you in that walk through Bed-Stuy tonight? I’ve noticed that nobody actually acts on these absurd theories. Why do you think whites fled to the suburbs in the first place? Nobody wanted to act out this insanity at the cost of their lives.
‘Actus: I don’t really consider a bunch of white liberal elitists the “majority”, ‘
But the law doesn’t discriminate along elite/plebe, or liberal/conservative lines, just white/black. And yes, white people are the majority.
I’d much prefer a law that discriminated based on economic eliteness.
Stephen –
You should really seek help. The amount of unjustified anger you exhibit on this blog is truly frightening.
Anyway
The posts on crime that Michelle and I made above address one issue – your assertion that black criminals SPECIFICALLY target whites for criminal activity. Info from the FBI’s UCR Studies absolutely contradics this conclusion.
In 2001
There were a total of 213,140 sexual assault victims. 183,160 were white (including hispanic), the other 29,980 were black. (86%White, 14% Black)
In analyzing the perceived race of offenders, 71.3 percent of the white victims identified a white offender, 17.1 percent of the white victims identified a black offender, and another 12% said Other or Not Known.
On the other hand, black victims identified a white perpetrator in 13.7 percent of the assaults, in 65.5 percent of the assaults they identified a black perpetrator,and in the other 20 percent of cases Other or Not known was identified as the perpetrator.
These FACTS absolutely contradict your assertions. see table 42 at this site if you don’t believe my numbers; http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0102.pdf
Stephen,
Oh, man, where to begin?
I said that the black violent crime rate is way higher than the white violent crime rate. What I also said is that your numbers in no way prove that blacks target whites. If anything (as I think linsee said above), blacks target other blacks.
Don’t throw Bed-Stuy at me, please. I spent most of my grad student years living in a mostly-lower-middle-class neighborhood in Emeryville that was roughly 1/3 white, 1/3 black, 1/3 Indian subcontinent. I had no car; I took public transit or walked. I had late-night rehearsals. I also had terrific neighbors — the kind who would call “Good Morning” from across the street even if they’d never seen you before, the kind who also (incidentally) watch one anothers’ backs. If you’re trying to creep me out about the dangers of walking where there are [cue ominous music] black people, give it up already.
[O]ther correspondents to the site have assured us that they know that white on black crime is proof of a conspiracy among whites to oppress blacks.
Have they, now? Examples, please. One will do, really.
The statistics prove precisely the opposite.
Well, they don’t, you know. There is violence obviously in terrorem, like lynching. Raw stats that conflate a guy dragged to death behind a truck for being black and a guy knifed in a sour drug deal are not quite capturing the point.
If you are going to make that argument,
[I didn’t make it and never wanted to]
then it follows as night follows day to argue that black men are using criminal violence to inspire fear in whites.
Please, Stephen. Confine yourself to arguing with what I actually do say. Don’t conflate me with half a dozen inaccessible, shadowy idiots, and then trumpet that this hybrid seven-headed monster has been triumphantly refuted. Jeez.
Still don’t buy a bit of it Michelle. I didn’t say that blacks were terrorizing whites. Another correspondent said that whites were terrorizing blacks and that white violence against blacks proved it. I said that, if you are going to make that argument, it’s pretty clear which side is doing more damage. And it is. No amount of silly games will convince me otherwise. I’ve lived on the border of Bed-Stuy and experienced the endemic racist violence of blacks.
I don’t buy the Jim Crow violence stuff either. Here, I am relying on the recollection of the men in my family who were from the midwest and the deep south. They don’t deny that whites committed violence against blacks. They state quite clearly that blacks committed plenty of violence against whites (and we’re talking the 30s and 40s) and that white liberals of their day explained away black on white violence in just the way you do today.
This process has been going on for a long time. Michelle, it’s a crock. So white northeners get teary eyed when a black guy is lynched. They don’t care when a southern white guy gets knifed by a gang of black men. I don’t buy the romantic fable. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. Tell it as often as you like. It’s a lie. Blacks have always (including in the time of the Jim Crow south) committed far more violence against whites than vice versa. This is not a justification of segregation. It is a separate issue. And it is the truth.
Now, let’s bring out the whole team of liberal white liars who seem to feed on defaming their own fathers. It’s supposed to be a sign of sophistication to do so, after all.
Stephen,
I don’t really know why I’m trying still, but
Still don’t buy a bit of it Michelle. I didn’t say that blacks were terrorizing whites. Another correspondent said that whites were terrorizing blacks and that white violence against blacks proved it. I said that, if you are going to make that argument, it’s pretty clear which side is doing more damage.
And I said that I hadn’t made the argument you were referring to, and had no idea why you were throwing it at my head. I did ask you for a single example of someone here, in fact, arguing that way. I take it you don’t have one.
I’ve lived on the border of Bed-Stuy and experienced the endemic racist violence of blacks.
Whereas the neighbors’ relationship with the black community was doubtless entirely placid and polite. Really, Stephen, citing a notorious flashpoint of riots isn’t particularly helpful in talking about the whole country.
I don’t buy the Jim Crow violence stuff either. Here, I am relying on the recollection of the men in my family who were from the midwest and the deep south. They don’t deny that whites committed violence against blacks. They state quite clearly that blacks committed plenty of violence against whites (and we’re talking the 30s and 40s) and that white liberals of their day explained away black on white violence in just the way you do today.
Yes, I well remember those accounts of whites being burned alive while cheering black crowds looked on; those postcards blacks sent to all their friends of themselves posing next to hanged white corpses. There’s such a very detailed historical record, yes?
Look, if you can’t see the difference between lynching and ordinary murder, I don’t know what to say to you. You would (let’s change the scene for a moment, because dwelling on the original and your distortion of it is making me a little sick, frankly) — you’d say that if it were forbidden in some country to say that women ought to have rights equal to men’s, and a woman were killed in the act of saying it, and her body made a public spectacle afterwards, that would be no different from a man, quietly going home after work, being knifed by someone who wanted his wallet. I mean, they’re both dead, right?
Blacks have always (including in the time of the Jim Crow south) committed far more violence against whites than vice versa.
Um . . . in the time of the slave South? Really? Dude, unless your conception of “always” has an expiration date somewhere on the label, you aren’t just misinformed, you’re into flat-Earth territory, or at least well on your way there.
Now, let’s bring out the whole team of liberal white liars who seem to feed on defaming their own fathers. It’s supposed to be a sign of sophistication to do so, after all.
Stephen, my parents grew up in rural Wisconsin; their parents were immigrants from central Europe and Scandinavia. I doubt any of them had much contact with black people. I don’t think they did anything wrong. (I do find it amusing to become a “white liberal.” Perhaps I ought to pass that on to my parents, who think I’m a hopelessly right-wing betrayer of all they labored so hard to teach me. YMMV.)
Again, it’s good to know that Stephen is around. Anytime posters get on that..”Cobra, it’s 2004 and people aren’t like that anymore”, Stephen’s there to save the game in the ninth inning. Thanks again, Stephen. You’re the best friend a liberal, minority, pro-Affirmative Action blog poster like me could ever have.
Michelle writes:
>>>(I do find it amusing to become a “white liberal.” Perhaps I ought to pass that on to my parents, who think I’m a hopelessly right-wing betrayer of all they labored so hard to teach me. YMMV.)”
Suddenly, I feel a warm smile wash over me.
Now, back to the THREAD AT HAND, about Jennifer Gratz and her “white vengence” lawsuit. Given the complexity of the 150 point Michigan Admissions system at the time, exactly HOW would her lawyers determine which students scored what without documentation on EVERY SINGLE APPLICANT during that period? Is it their argument, and perhaps that of those who SUPPORT this nonsense, that EVERY WHITE STUDENT who applied to Michigan should’ve been accepted, no matter the number of available spots, and if they weren’t, it was due to racism?
I would LOVE to see how they’d win this suit, but hey…if you pick a “sympathetic jury”, you can get the desired verdict, right?
–Cobra
Cobra,
Again, it’s good to know that Stephen is around. Anytime posters get on that..”Cobra, it’s 2004 and people aren’t like that anymore”, Stephen’s there to save the game in the ninth inning. Thanks again, Stephen. You’re the best friend a liberal, minority, pro-Affirmative Action blog poster like me could ever have.
That’s so very true that there are times I suspect Stephen of being your own invention, Cobra. But he can’t possibly be; he’s a great deal more imaginative than your own idea of a white racist would be, for one thing.
Suddenly, I feel a warm smile wash over me.
Hey, whatever helps ;-)
But, Cobra, here’s something you might consider taking away from this. An avowed racist posts on a site that is pretty much in its conception anti-affirmative-action, and what’s the first thing that happens? Said avowed racist is attacked by regular readers. I don’t know what james thinks about affirmative action. You know I’m broadly opposed to it. But I know why I’m opposed to it, and I won’t have the right case argued for the wrong reasons. Do remember that the next time it occurs to you to suggest that your opponents are racist until proven otherwise.
“Excuse me…why are you asking ME that question, when under that VERY SAME SCENARIO, Jennifer Gratz filed a lawsuit against the only school she applied to, taking it all the way the Supreme Court. She is the text book definition of the phrase, “making a federal case out of it.”
You’re missing the point, Cobra. Gratz had a better overall package (Grades AND scores) than the vast majority of URM’s, in terms of Grades, SAT’s, and everything else. She was specifically excluded based on nothing other than her ethnicity. Any other URMS who had higher grades OR scores presumably were severely lacking in the other respect, or they never would’ve been passed over, given the huge artificial advantage built in on their behalf. (Again, being a URM was worth MORE than a perfect SAT, and was worth the difference between a 2.5 GPA and a 3.5 GPA.)
How is this unfairness “perceived”, as opposed to actual and blatant?
“My question was pointing out the OBVIOUSLY hypocrisy represented by many posters in here who believe that a perceived unfairness against whites is intolerable, but the same against minorities, especially black people either doesn’t exist, or isn’t worthy of preventive societal counter-balancing.
In other words, I don’t believe many anti-Affirmative Action types who blog here lose much sleep over any of the documented instances of anti-minority bias I detail. That is evident in your responses.”
As far as unfairness against URM’s goes, if you can point to any other government policies today that actually discriminate against people based on their ethnicity, I’ll support you on them. I don’t see them. (And I haven’t seen you detail any.)
“Apparently, the greatest evil that can exist in America is a white Christian heterosexual male not getting what he feels he is endowed by his Creator to be entitled to.”
You’re ignoring the fact that it’s not just white, Christian, straight males who are unfairly discriminated against in AA. Asians are hurt even more than whites, as has been shown by the removal of AA in California. (The number of Asians were kept artificially low under the prior system, with white numbers actually kept aritificially high relative to them.) This is despite the fact that Asians were also historically oppressed, at least as much as hispanics. Jews, of course, are also just as hurt as whites, despite also being a historically oppressed minority. Many arabs/muslims are also hurt, as they are also discriminated against, despite often being working-class immigrants. Are you really this uninformed about AA, or do you just prefer regurgitating nonsense?
The real problem is not that any group is not getting what they’re “entitled” to – the problem is that some groups are receiving preferential treatment from the government, without any real rational basis, and individuals of all groups are therefore not receiving what they’ve earned.
“Makes you wonder WHY people like myself don’t concede, retreat or surrender from support of Affirmative Action, huh?”
No, there’s actually little question in my mind why you support AA. Given your unwillingness to actually think objectively about the issue, It would appear that you’re someone who doesn’t want to take responsbility for his own life, and is willing to defend anything that supposedly works in his own self-interest, no matter how intrinsically unfair or eventually counterproductive. These are hardly new motivations, but they’re not exactly admirable either.
“‘Actus: I don’t really consider a bunch of white liberal elitists the “majority”, ‘”
“But the law doesn’t discriminate along elite/plebe, or liberal/conservative lines, just white/black. And yes, white people are the majority.”
“I’d much prefer a law that discriminated based on economic eliteness.”
The problem, Actus, is that the people making those rules are in fact the economic and social elite. They’re not harmed by AA, despite being white, because they have enough resources and contacts to guarantee their kids get in where they want.
It’s the ordinary, average, working-class, and poor non-URM’s who are truly harmed by this policy. (Along with URM’s who are then stigmatized, resented, etc.)
A policy that simply took economic opportunity into account would obviously be far more fair, and would probably engender almost no opposition.
Stephen’s a moron. He’s right, however, that there’s more violence, in both proportionate and absolute terms, committed by URM’s against whites today than vice-versa. I’m not sure how this is relevant, except in highlighting the fact that any and all groups can be racist and commit “hate” crimes. (Cobra’s apparent vitriol against white Christians also illustrates this, of course.)
What it underscores, of course, is the fact that policies that mainly stir up resentment and reinforce ethnic divisions are probably a bad idea.
“Now, back to the THREAD AT HAND, about Jennifer Gratz and her “white vengence” lawsuit. Given the complexity of the 150 point Michigan Admissions system at the time, exactly HOW would her lawyers determine which students scored what without documentation on EVERY SINGLE APPLICANT during that period? Is it their argument, and perhaps that of those who SUPPORT this nonsense, that EVERY WHITE STUDENT who applied to Michigan should’ve been accepted, no matter the number of available spots, and if they weren’t, it was due to racism?”
I’m not sure why you think this is so complex, Cobra. It was actually a 100 point system, as described in the blurb below. Maybe you’re not familiar with litigation generally, but it’s not that hard to find the scores of applicants, and subtract 20 from 100. (The University obviously had to compile this information at some point, and information provided during the lawsuit indicates that it was in fact retained.)
The policy was as follows:
“The policy in question required the Office of Undergraduate Admissions to review high school grades, standardized test scores, high school quality, curriculum strength, geography, alumni relationships, leadership and race. The guidelines in effect at the time this decision was issued was based on 100 points. The guidelines added 20 points to persons who fell within the underrepresented racial or ethnic minority group. The Court found that automatically providing a minority applicant 20% of the points needed to guarantee admission was not narrowly tailored to achieve the purpose of diversity in education.”
http://www.sirote.com/publications/index.asp?action=details&pub_id=244
(Just one legal website — the same info can be found anywhere else.)
Given that the numbers are clear-cut, and the dicrimination in question is clearly and specifically quantified (20 points), it shouldn’t be difficult at all to determine who was improperly denied admission. I’m not sure what you’re screeching about, but your nonsensical interpretation indicates you really don’t understand the case at all.
“I would LOVE to see how they’d win this suit, but hey…if you pick a “sympathetic jury”, you can get the desired verdict, right?”
The Supreme Court determined that such a preference system was in fact unconstitutional. Are you saying that plaintiffs who’ve suffered unconstitutional discrimination should have no remedy? Or only plantiffs who look like you?
‘A policy that simply took economic opportunity into account would obviously be far more fair, and would probably engender almost no opposition.’
I mean, because america is so about helping the poor. And I’d have to disagree that elite whites don’t feel the effects of AA. Elite or not, they’re still not getting a bonus in competition.
And I’d have to disagree that elite whites don’t feel the effects of AA. Elite or not, they’re still not getting a bonus in competition
actus – I’d like to see you try to explain to the many poor whites who inhabit not only Appalachia but small towns and cities everywhere that they are “getting a bonus in competition” with minorities these days.
JL,
Because I disagree with your opinion doesn’t mean “I don’t understand the case.” And the Supreme Court did not render a UNANIMOUS decision. It was split, so OBVIOUSLY there are learned judges who AGREE with me.
Now, I gave this response to Garrick in another thread on the Michigan Program.
>>>>>>What do children of longtime donors, scholarship athletes, white students at predominantly black high schools, northern Michigan residents, men who want to be nurses and children of alumni have in common?
Just like blacks, Hispanics and American Indians, they get an edge on the competition when they apply for admission to the University of Michigan…
…White students who attend high schools that have predominantly minority students get 20 points.
About 50 students in the freshman class of 5,187 were given an extra 20 points under a provision called “provost’s discretion.” The points are reserved for children of longtime donors, active alumni or those with a recommendation from someone like a governor or university president, said U-M admissions director Ted Spencer.
About 100 scholarship athletes were each given 20 points last year.
Students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or who have overcome extraordinary obstacles can get 20 points.
Students from at least 114 highly regarded Michigan high schools get up to an extra eight points because of the strong curriculum and high numbers of students who attend college.
If a prospective student’s mother or father attended U-M, that’s good for 4 points, the equivalent of turning a 3.5 GPA into a 3.7.
Grades are far more important than test scores. A 4.0 grade point average gets 80 points; a perfect score on the ACT or SAT gets 12 points.
Michigan residents get a 10-point boost. And applicants from 41 underrepresented counties in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula get an extra 6 points.”
http://www.freep.com/news/education/admit13_20030213.htm
The following link gives a PDF file of the ENTIRE points program breakdown from academics to miscellaneous considerations.
http://www.freep.com/pdf/2003/02/13/umpoints.pdf
Now, as you can PLAINLY SEE, without any hyperbole, exaggeration, and ad hominem attacks on my part, there was AMPLE opportunity for white applicants to the University of Michigan to receive bonus points equal to, or EXCEDING any received by an underrepreseted minority applicant. As much as Jennifer Gratz complained about being unfairly treated because she was white, her own GEOGRAPHY played a far bigger role. The simple FACTS are right in front of your eyes. IF Jennifer Gratz went to a school that just had a 51% minority student body, she would’ve received 20 BONUS POINTS, just as if she was an underrepresented minority student applicant. To put it even more BLUNTLY, Marshall Mathers aka the white rapper Eminem, who grew up in the downtrodden 8 Mile section of Detroit would’ve gotten a 20 point bonus if he applied to Michigan.”
I don’t know what your agenda is, JL. I don’t know what is your philosophy on race and society. Your insulting my intelligence won’t persuade me to agree with your point of view. If your goal is to turn back the clock to the pre-Nixon era, know that people like me will fight you at every turn. You can’t justify white America’s historical treatment of non-whites, nor can you give any assurances that without the weight of law, white America won’t relapse into the pattern of discriminatory behavior that it’s irrefutably infamous for.
–Cobra
John L writes:
>>>I’m not sure why you think this is so complex, Cobra. It was actually a 100 point system, as described in the blurb below. Maybe you’re not familiar with litigation generally, but it’s not that hard to find the scores of applicants, and subtract 20 from 100. (The University obviously had to compile this information at some point, and information provided during the lawsuit indicates that it was in fact retained.)”
As reported in my link, the program had 150 point maximum score, with 100 being the minimum score neccessary for admittance into Michigan. Jennifer Gratz was put on a waiting list. It’s extremely easy to see how somebody could score OVER 100 points, yet not qualify for one of approximately 5,000 spots with 25,000 applicants.
Also, Jennifer Gratz was a good student, but she wasn’t a valedictorian. She had SATs around 1180. She was a cheerleader. That wasn’t the BEST application possible. Exactly what GUARANTEES those credentials should have rewarded her with acceptance into any school she wants? Why isn’t anybody discussing that? Are you SURE this isn’t dipping into “entitlement”, JL?
–Cobra
Um . . . Cobra, what has Jennifer Gratz being a cheerleader got to do with anything at all? You mightn’t be stereotyping a little there yourself?
Michelle,
I didn’t mean to disparage cheerleaders. I just wanted to present a reality to this portrayal of Gratz as some new age Joan of Arc, with extraodinary extracurriculars and perfect grades. I’m sure, however, she performed her chants, claps and flips with precision and accuracy worthy of the accolades they deserve.
–Cobra
No, Cobra, of course you didn’t mean to disparage cheerleaders. That’s why the preceding sentence dealt with Gratz’s not-so-spectacular SATs (I’m kind of curious where you got that number, by the way, and why it was so interestingly imprecise — SAT scores go in increments of 10, so why “around 1180”?), and the following sentence was “That wasn’t the BEST application possible.”
What is that sentence doing between those other two, Cobra, if not adding color to your portrait of Gratz as ditzy airhead? Or, to put it another way, would you have put “She was a gymnast” in the same place? (A lot of cheerleaders are gymnasts, actually; my sister was both.)
Nope, you were trading on a stereotype, dude. Sorry.
“You can’t justify white America’s historical treatment of non-whites, nor can you give any assurances that without the weight of law, white America won’t relapse into the pattern of discriminatory behavior that it’s irrefutably infamous for.”
Cobra,
As much as you would prefer it to be not so, the Supreme court has ruled that compensation for past injustices is not a compelling state interest in granting preferences to certain non-whites (remember Asian Americans do not fall under AA). The only reason for allowing such preferential treatment is to create a ‘diverse’ educational environment which must be narrowly tailored to achieve only that goal.
Many opponents of AA are doubtless motivated by racism, but many, including the host of this site, do so on the principle that ‘diversity’, in and of itself, is not a compelling reason to bestow or withold benefits based on race or ethnicity. And to do so is immoral.
You refuse to concede that a person, particularly a white person, is capable of holding principled opposition and therefore must harbor racial animus towards blacks.
As the quote above demonstrates, you have a deep mistrust of whites and it animates most of your analysis. That is unfortunate as you seem to end up categorizing your debate opponents as duplicitous bigots. And as you said to JL, it “won’t persuade me to agree with your point of view”.
Nobody important writes:
>>>You refuse to concede that a person, particularly a white person, is capable of holding principled opposition and therefore must harbor racial animus towards blacks.
As the quote above demonstrates, you have a deep mistrust of whites and it animates most of your analysis. That is unfortunate as you seem to end up categorizing your debate opponents as duplicitous bigots. And as you said to JL, it “won’t persuade me to agree with your point of view”.”
I believe I have the facts on my side of this argument. It’s not wrong on my part to question the motivations of anybody’s argument. It’s unfortunate that some interpret my accurate accessment of anti-minority in both the past and present day America as labelling all critics of my opinions “racist”, but that’s more a problem belonging to those who feel that way. Not mine.
I have certainly mentioned time and time again that people can disagree with me on these issues, and not be “racist.” In fact, I don’t believe I’ve ever called a single poster here a “racist.”
–Cobra
Just for the record:
1. I never took the SAT.
2. When I applied to UM, the admissions system was a grid system (2 grids), not a point system.
3. I was involved in many activities in high school … and yes one of the activites was competitive cheerleading (a sanctioned sport in the state of Michigan).
John:
‘actus – I’d like to see you try to explain to the many poor whites who inhabit not only Appalachia but small towns and cities everywhere that they are “getting a bonus in competition” with minorities these days.’
I said they’re not getting that bonus.
Michelle writes:
>>>That’s why the preceding sentence dealt with Gratz’s not-so-spectacular SATs (I’m kind of curious where you got that number, by the way, and why it was so interestingly imprecise
Cobra,
What I’m trying to get to is that how your debate opponents percieve your motivations is your problem too, if your goal is to reach some common ground and understanding. Just as you reserve the right to question your opponent’s arguments, so too do your opponents question yours. If your motivations appear to be driven by racial animosity (rightly or wrongly) then your opponents will discount your facts and dismiss your arguments (as some seem to have done) and nothing is accomplished.
If, on the other hand, your posts are merely polemic and you are not interested in debate and dialog, then you can expect some posters (not all) will be defensive and adversarial.
And while others may disagree, I find your posts interesting and worth think about. However, I remain in disagreement with you in principle.
So, to keep this from being a debate about the debate, let me ask you to comment on my point that the SCOTUS has ruled that past injustice against blacks, unarguably ugly and shameful, is not a compelling state interest in granting benefits to minorities, thereby, rendering moot your major argument in regard to AA.
‘So, to keep this from being a debate about the debate, let me ask you to comment on my point that the SCOTUS has ruled that past injustice against blacks, unarguably ugly and shameful, is not a compelling state interest in granting benefits to minorities, thereby, rendering moot your major argument in regard to AA.’
I thought they said this only in the context of an admissions committee at a college, not in general.
And this thread is about?
Just clarifying.
Nobody important writes:
>>>So, to keep this from being a debate about the debate, let me ask you to comment on my point that the SCOTUS has ruled that PAST injustice against blacks, unarguably ugly and shameful, is not a compelling state interest in granting benefits to minorities, thereby, rendering moot your major argument in regard to AA.”
The key word in that phrase is “PAST.” I believe injustice against blacks is STILL continuing in the PRESENT, which is not taken into account by the SCOTUS. Those who don’t believe injustice against blacks and minorities still exists in America today, would probably have a harder time understanding my argument than most.
I also don’t bestow God-like omniscience on the SCOTUS. They’ve made anti-minority decisions in the past, and with the make-up of the court, I’m sure they’ll make them again.
–Cobra
Cobra,
So, on a showing that there is present prejudice in this country against Asian-Americans, Muslims, Arab-Americans, Jews, or any other group, you’d also support a boost for them in the admissions process?
Cobra,
Thanks for your response. There is no doubt that injustices are happening to minorities, but are those injustices always the result of racism? And are the remedies you prefer actually helping?
If the universities of this country are engaged in racist, exclusionary actions that are limiting black access, why place the burden on innocent third parties (white students)?
Or are the white students, like Ms. Gratz, contributing to the injustice by applying for admission, thereby taking the place of a minority that would have been admitted had we lived in a perfect society?
Or are you saying that the injustices are general in nature with no specific agency, no specific victim, thus requiring general remedies, that unfortunately are part of the price of being white in America? Part of the balancing of white priviledge?
Hasn’t the SCOTUS also made rulings that were beneficial to blacks? Like upholding the UM Law School’s admissions policy? And why wouldn’t that continue?
Michelle writes:
>>>What is that sentence doing between those other two, Cobra, if not adding color to your portrait of Gratz as ditzy airhead? Or, to put it another way, would you have put “She was a gymnast” in the same place? (A lot of cheerleaders are gymnasts, actually; my sister was both.)
Another point…if Jennifer Gratz had chosen gymnastics instead of cheerleading (though many high schools don’t offer it), she stood a chance, if she was good enough, to earn a 20 point bonus, because unlike “Cheerleading”, Gymnastics is a varsity, scholarship-elligible sport at the University of Michigan. In fact, there are 13 varsity women’s sports available at the U of M, from basketball to water polo. Cheerleading is very competative at U of M, but their website claims there is no scholarship money available. They’ll give you a cool uniform and a trip to the games, though.
Michelle writes:
>>>So, on a showing that there is present prejudice in this country against Asian-Americans, Muslims, Arab-Americans, Jews, or any other group, you’d also support a boost for them in the admissions process?”
There’s a difference between prejudice and discrimination. You would have to give me a specific example of discriminatory action against those groups. There are all sorts of boosts in college admissions programs. To single out the racial component without reviewing components obviously geared to assist primarily whites is to dsiplay hypocrisy.
Nobody Important writes:
>>>There is no doubt that injustices are happening to minorities, but are those injustices always the result of racism? And are the remedies you prefer actually helping?”
Depends on what your definition of “helping” is, and the alternatives. For example, if person has opportunities to attend a good college, or get a job that might not have ordinarily been open to him, how is that a “bad solution?” You can say, a “deserving white person” may be deprived access, but are they really? Again, given the reality of nepotism, cronyism, fraternalism, backscratching, interlocking directorates and old boys networking, there seems to more of a “scapegoat” mentality when attacks on Affirmative Action gains are made. The sheer facts indicate that AA is not an all emcompassing cure all, but a wedge in an often closed door.
>>>If the universities of this country are engaged in racist, exclusionary actions that are limiting black access, why place the burden on innocent third parties (white students)?”
My belief is that racist, exclusionary actions aren’t limited to the universities and colleges in America, but course through the veins of all America. Law enforcement doesn’t just place speed limits on highways, but on local roads and side streets as well, because the danger of speeding motorists is a reality at all levels. Is a check point or speed trap inconvenient to the responsible driver? I don’t think so.
>>>Or are the white students, like Ms. Gratz, contributing to the injustice by applying for admission, thereby taking the place of a minority that would have been admitted had we lived in a perfect society?”
My argument against Gratz has been consistant from the beginning. I believe she is selectively outraged, blaming race for not getting into the University of Michigan, when the facts are evident that if every single underrepresented minority was wiped from the earth when she applied in 1994, there was still NO GUARANTEE of her admission against 25,000 OTHER APPLICANTS FOR 5,000 SPOTS. There were dubious, reactionary forces in Washington DC think tanks and seats of power, that saw Gratz as a sypathetic telegenic poster child for their anti-Affirmative Action campaign, and away we go. D.W. Griffith couldn’t have wrote a more effective script–
>>>Founded by Greve and Michael McDonald, a local lawyer, the CIR has a $1.2 million budget, most of it from conservative and libertarian foundations. Greve is in charge of belittling the opposition — he recently likened the University of Michigan dean to an automobile air bag — while McDonald handles the legal arguments. Last year, the group recruited a full-time publicist, Terry Pell, who was once an aide to former drug czar William Bennett…
…The trio spend nearly as much time courting reporters as drafting briefs. Consider the media tornado the CIR whipped up for its University of Michigan suit…
…When the group decided to sue the school, staffers pored over resumes and biographies of about 100 potential plaintiffs, information sent to them by sympathetic state legislators in Michigan. After paring the list, McDonald flew to Detroit, settled into a hotel room and held a series of interviews.
The group’s search for a camera-ready lead plaintiff ended when Gratz, a blond homecoming queen from a blue-collar family, walked in the door. She had stellar grades, no apparent political leanings and good looks to boot. CIR staffers tipped off the New York Times about her suit, and soon a long line of print and television journalists formed.
CIR staffers vetted interview requests and flew Gratz to Washington to pepper her with likely questions. When she showed up on the “Today” show, Terry Pell was sitting next to her, and he was on a speaker phone when reporters visited Gratz’s home in a Detroit suburb. The trick, according to Greve, was making sure she had good answers that didn’t come across as coached.
“You can overdo it,” said Greve, flashing a mischievous grin. “If she sounds like some lawyer made her say something, well, that’s not advantageous for us, either.”
http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/137.html
Who are the REAL victims in this case? Gratz is now the “Executive Director” of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which was gratefully thwarted in their attempt to destroy race-based Affirmative Action in that state this past year. They have already announced their pledge to try it again in the future.
She is also allied with this…”man.”
http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/ward_connerly.htm
His popularity in THIS particular blog speaks volumes about why I question the motivations of many posters.
We can debate about issues, and nuances civilly, Nobody. I don’t have a problem with the respectful discourse of differing views and opinions. When individuals or groups actively pursue agendas purposely detrimental to me and those like me, I have a tendency to make a more visceral, retaliatory response. My soul is NOT for sale.
>>>Hasn’t the SCOTUS also made rulings that were beneficial to blacks? Like upholding the UM Law School’s admissions policy? And why wouldn’t that continue?”
Because the decision was 5-4. IF the SCOTUS goes as many say Bush would like, and clones of Thomas, Scalia, and anti-CRA-1964 Rhenquist are placed on the Court, we could see a throwback to the mid-20th Century as far as many social issues are concerned.
–Cobra
Cobra,
You skipped over part of the Gratz story. Because Ms. Gratz was white, the State of Michigan told her that the University of Michigan-Dearborn was good enough for her. But under the previously existing AA system in Michigan, if and when Ms. Gratz applies to law school or graduate school at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, the admissions people are still going to except her GRE, GPA, and difficulty of classes to exceed those of those black students who were admitted as undergraduates to the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor with lower academic qualifications than Ms. Gratz had.
How many times should the children of white colllared, college educated black parents be given a “leg up” over the children of blue collar white parents? If Michigan, the answer is at least four.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>How many times should the children of white colllared, college educated black parents be given a “leg up” over the children of blue collar white parents? If Michigan, the answer is at least four.”
Which blue collar white parents? The ones that send their kids to schools that have more than half minority student bodies got a leg up. The ones that don’t have much money got a leg up. The ones living in the upper penninsula got a leg up. The ones who have letters of recommendation from the rich, powerful or famous got a leg up. The ones, like 2 time Super Bowl MVP Tom Brady’s, that have athleticly gifted children got a leg up.
But hey, why observe those preferences when you have a handy, historically popular scapegoat in race at your disposal?
–Cobra
John;
I don’t believe it is a “new suit,” or that the plaintiffs “sued again”, since this is only a “continuation” of the Gratz case which the Supreme Court sent back down to the District for determination of damages.
However, I found your observation about the Julie Peterson quote to be similar to mine. I’d go further and find it ironic that they are now using the victory in Grutter for a public relations claim that they SHOULD NEVER HAVE LOST in Gratz. They are masters of spin with this neat trick, since they argued all along the facts were different.
Chetly,
It’s all about winning, facts and principles be damnned. More evidence of the Left clinging to their credo: the ends justify the means.
A wide, toothy grin is fixed upon my face as I read conservatives and “libertarians” extoll the virtues of TRIAL LAWYERS. I understand the desire they have to turn Jennifer Gratz into the “Rosa Parks of Suburbia.” I do get it. I wonder however, if Zarko and company would support with the same zeal some OTHER racial injustice lawsuits…such as these:
>>>I. The Reparations Effort in Greenwood, Oklahoma
On the night of May 31 through June 1, 1921, a mob of white rioters, including individuals deputized by the Chief of Police of the city of Tulsa and properly activated members of the Oklahoma State National Guard, descended upon Greenwood, the African-American district of Tulsa popularly known as the