Regarding the replacement of Mary Frances Berry with Gerald Reynolds a chairman of the Commission on Civil Rights, an editorial in today’s Detroit News asserts that
President George W. Bush will surely hold up his appointment of African-American attorney Gerald Reynolds to head the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as another example of the diversity in his administration. But there’s no diversity beyond skin shade reflected in the naming of the conservative Reynolds, an avowed foe of affirmative action who has said that racial discrimination is generally an overblownissue. [emphasis added]
No diversity beyond skin shade? Funny, I don’t recall the DetNews writing anything critical of the nothing-but-skin-shade-diversity practiced all these years by the University of Michigan and others.
The implication that an “avowed foe of affirmative action” can’t believe in civil rights has already been dealt with here (and here).
I like how the guy in charge of civil rights thinks discrimination is overblown.
I agree that was a dumb statement. Racial discrimination definitely remains a problem, and will as long as racial preferences are tolerated.
See. There’s so much work to be done. Supreme court opinions to undo. . .
Well after all, they are Opinions, and opinions change.
Actually, I don’t think it would require the Supremes to overturn Bakke or Grutter in order to put a stop to preferences. Both of those opinions relied on the fiction that schools considered, and could consider, race as only “one factor among many” or words to that effect. All the Supremes would have to do to stop preferences is to recognize that, in fact, racial preferences emulate the hard, race-based bonus points outlawed in Gratz.
First of all, I hope the Bush Administration vetted Gerald Reynolds better than it did Bernard Kerik.
Second, I’m not at all suprised Bush would appoint a man like Reynolds, who reflects Bush’s attitude against Affirmative Action, but against the vast majority of underrepresented minority opinion.
I’m sure that if Bush appointed a person from this organization http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ to be ambassador to Israel, there would be many Jews here in America opposed to the appointment.
–Cobra
Please recognize, Cobra, that being opposed to the use of affirmative action is not to be opposed to civil rights — just as being opposed to trepanning to treat migraine headaches is not the same as being opposed to the treatment of migraines.
Precinct,
If the person treating your migrane headache thinks the pain you’re feeling is “overblown”, I doubt you’d feel that person would have the desired sense of urgency for treatment. My bet, is that you’d seek a second opinion.
–Cobra
Frankly, I don’t take much stock in complaints of “no diversity beyond skin shade” from people who are ordinarily perfectly content with same, even though the present legal environment obliges them to pretend that it’s diversity of perspective they really want.
Cobra,
Extending your analogy, this is the second opinion. The first expert performed radical reconstructive surgery, and the patient thinks he botched the job.
Vish writes:
>>>Extending your analogy, this is the second opinion. The first expert performed radical reconstructive surgery, and the patient thinks he botched the job.”
Would that opinion of a “botched” surgery be from the patient himself, or a rival doctor who wants to benefit from the patient’s desire to be cured?
–Cobra
Cobra,
Opinions on affirmative action are notoriously hard to pin down in surveys since few issues are as sensitive to wording effects. Nonetheless it seems that the administration’s policy (ie, outreach and pro-minority disparate impacts are OK, race-norming and quotas are generally to be avoided) reflects the beliefs of about half of blacks and Hispanics and a strong majority of Americans overall. Granted, the civil rights establishment unanimously wants something along the lines of race-norming. But in contrast to your example, not just a majority of Jewish organizations, or a majority of Jews, but a strong majority of Americans support Israel. Even if Jews felt differently about Israel and underrepresented minorities felt differently about AA than everyone else, that wouldn’t mean that their opinions on the matter should prevail since nobody owns a given realm of policy.
‘Would that opinion of a “botched” surgery be from the patient himself, or a rival doctor who wants to benefit from the patient’s desire to be cured?’
And shall we let this analogy stretch as far as malpractice reform? Who’s going to pay the price for such a crappy analogy?
Gabriel writes:
>>>Nonetheless it seems that the administration’s policy (ie, outreach and pro-minority disparate impacts are OK, race-norming and quotas are generally to be avoided) reflects the beliefs of about half of blacks and Hispanics and a strong majority of Americans overall”
Do you have a source for this statement?
Are you actually claiming that “half the blacks” in America AGREE with George W. Bush’s stance on Affirmative Action (or “Access,” or whatever Orwellian term he chooses)? And when did “quotas” become synonymous with Affirmative Action?
And most certainly in a democratic society, the majority opinion normally wins the day on policy decisions. As America’s population continues to shift ethnically, would you be able to draw the same conclusions 50 years from now?
–Cobra
Cobra,
Yes, I am claiming that about half of American blacks tell pollsters that they believe something roughly in line with W’s position. For lack of a better cite, see this page (found by a quick google):
http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm
As you can see, in this survey a strong majority of blacks favor affirmative action in the abstract, but in the specific case of college admissions preferences they are split more or less evenly.
I didn’t equate affirmative action with quotas (or w/ race-norming for that matter). To the contrast –as you’ll see if you reread my post– my comment was premised on the assumption that affirmative action can refer to a broad family of policies, some of which (such as outreach) are more or less universally popular and some of which (quotas, race-norming) are much less popular. Much like abortion, most people have fairly nuanced beliefs on the subject and not the stark pro/con that discourse suggests.
Finally, it’s true that demographics are changing. But I’d say two things to this. First, like the Grutter majority, I’d certainly hope that 25 or 50 years from now racial disparities will be slight and thus there is no political pressure to redistribute resources. (Though Sowell’s analysis of India does not give cause for optimism). Second, while I think that in general policy belongs to the majority and not to specific constituencies, I think that sometimes policies don’t belong to majorities either. Rather some policies are subject to natural rights that majorities have no right to oppose. I don’t care how large a majority wants to prohibit flag-burning or require redistributive discrimination — such policies are still illegitimate.
Affirmative action has been good to me. I have no objections to blacks receiving priority in hires, appointments, contracts, and admissions. This applies to liberal blacks such as myself, and even to conservative blacks such as Reynolds.
We don’t want to start discriminating against our brothers and sisters based on political philosophy. That way lies tyranny.
If I had no objections to racial preferences granted to my own race, does that make me a racist?
…Because, you know, well…I’ll let you all connect the dots…
akefa and cobra,
AFter hearing your diatiribe for race preferences. Let me tell you something very clear, preferences of any kind whether espoused by Marta Tienda, Lanie Guinier or Chris Edley or by BIll Kidder and his Equal Justice Society have never worked to correct an injustice not any time in history. It is a mirage, an illusions that will be eventually harmful to its beneficiaries. Are you Suggesting to me that a race preference should be given to the rich grandson of Simon Wiesenthal in university admissions over the poor grandson of the camp commandant of Auschwitz ?
Leo cruz writes:
>>>Are you Suggesting to me that a race preference should be given to the rich grandson of Simon Wiesenthal in university admissions over the poor grandson of the camp commandant of Auschwitz ?”
Are you claiming that reverse preference would be more favorable? In many colleges, being “poor” is beneficial to admission. Take Jennifer Gratz. Poor whites living at or below the poverty line had a BONUS she didn’t have when she applied to the University of Michigan.
Are you claiming that Gratz was a victim of “monetary discrimination?”
–Cobra
Cobra,
You do not know what you are talking about. Giving preference for the poor is not a form of a “reverse preference ” I do not know if Gratz was poorer or richer than other MIchigan applicants or not , and yes I beleive there there should be preferences given to the poor. I believe in giving preferences to the poor in the Upper MIchigan peninsula, in the same waY I beleive preferences should be given to the poor who attend an a school, whehter it is inner -city or rural, be they black or white. Don’t put words in my mouth cobra.
Leo Cruz writes:
>>>I do not know if Gratz was poorer or richer than other MIchigan applicants or not , and yes I beleive there there should be preferences given to the poor. ”
You NEED to know Gratz’s financial situation in order to debate the Michigan case. Making Gratz a martyr for the white backlash movement is rhetorically effective, but in reality, you’re arguing for CLASS discrimination as an alternative to what you perceive as race discrimination.
How do you justify this?
–Cobra
Refer to my previous description of the
150 – point scale of the ADmssions Performance Index. Whether she was poor not , if she did not pass the cutoff score of the Admissions Performance Index, she does not deserve to be admitted to the UM
Ann arbor undergraduate department. This was also the case the with the 1400 or so
non- white applicants you claimed got higher scores than Miss Gratz. None of them apparently passed the cutoff score of the Admissions Performance Index. If you Cobra has any gripe, it should be about the factors that were included in the Admissions Performance INdex. Again, you do not know what you are talking about. Let us just say that the 1400 non- whites you claimed were denied admission to UM Ann Arbor know when to shut their mouth off, cobra you don’t.
Leo Cruz writes:
>>>Refer to my previous description of the
150 – point scale of the ADmssions Performance Index. Whether she was poor not , if she did not pass the cutoff score of the Admissions Performance Index, she does not deserve to be admitted to the UM
Ann arbor undergraduate department. This was also the case the with the 1400 or so
non- white applicants you claimed got higher scores than Miss Gratz. None of them apparently passed the cutoff score of the Admissions Performance Index. If you Cobra has any gripe, it should be about the factors that were included in the Admissions Performance INdex. Again, you do not know what you are talking about. Let us just say that the 1400 non- whites you claimed were denied admission to UM Ann Arbor know when to shut their mouth off, cobra you don’t.”
So let me get this straight… white Jennifer Gratz doesn’t make the cut-off score for U of M, and you don’t seem to have a PROBLEM with her speaking out to the national media, and taking a lawsuit all the way to the SCOTUS. I make a factual claim about 1400 underrepresented minorities who ALSO don’t make the cut-off score who had higher grades or scores than Gratz, and you tell me they “didn’t deserve to get in” and “they know when to shut their mouths off, and I don’t”
Don’t you see all the delicious hypocrisy here?
I sure do, and so do MILLIONS of other conscious underrepresented minorities in America.
You can’t shut us ALL up, Leo.
–Cobra