Baked And Steaming

College Republicans at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte are sponsoring their third annual affirmative action bake sale.

It’s actually a mock bake sale since the students don’t really sell anything. Instead, they will be “pretending to sell cookies and brownies priced according to the buyer’s race or gender.”

Minority student organizations “say the mock sale is racist,” and they are “angered that the university has refused to stop the event….”

Meanwhile, at the University of Mississippi, black law students are offered an education that costs 73% less than what other students must pay.

Currently, a 73 percent tuition scholarship exists for black resident students admitted to the school….

As a result of this scholarship, a resident black student paid about $2,044.04 last year, instead of the normal tuition rate of $7,570.50 a year other residents paid in tuition.

I wonder whether minority students think the Ole Miss policy is racist.

This is not a mock bake sale, but I suspect it does have some students steaming.

Say What? (57)

  1. Laura February 12, 2005 at 8:17 am | | Reply

    Kind of a poorly written article.

    I thought minority-only scholarships were acceptable as long as they were offered by private entities. According to this article, the school itself is offering the black-only scholarship. Is that legal?

  2. notherbob2 February 12, 2005 at 10:42 am | | Reply
  3. actus February 12, 2005 at 11:31 am | | Reply

    What disparity in cookie ownership are the republican twits addressing?

  4. krm February 12, 2005 at 11:57 am | | Reply

    So rich blacks get a break and a poor white kid who fights his/her way out of the trailer park pays the full rate?

    If we wish to help those who need it (while not gifting those who don’t), why isn’t it all race neutral and wealth/class based?

    In that case, to the extent that any group does less well than it ought to due to discrimination then it would get greater benefit from such as system.

  5. Cobra February 12, 2005 at 12:12 pm | | Reply

    Actus,

    Like most of the AAA-types, it’s a “do as I say, not as I do” arrangement. These white male advocacy groups on campus, much like the MCRI, don’t give a damn about statistics on wealth inequity or institutional racism. But, am I surprised? Nope. I’m sure we’ll see more affirmative action bake sales, fraternity blackface parties, David Horowitz lectures, and open readings of “The Bell Curve” as the white nationalism of the new conservative movement festers.

    As far as the article on Ole’ Miss is concerned, the throwaway line from the article is missing from John’s analysis.

    >>>”All applicants admitted are eligible for other scholarships, Lee said.”

    We don’t truly know HOW MUCH each of the 152 white law students are paying in tuition, do we? That being said, the equation of the tuition cost and the cost after the African American scholarship is misleading.

    Just another example of conservative hyperbole used in an attempt to incite the moderate white citizenry.

    Again…it’s nothing new.

    –Cobra

  6. John Rosenberg February 12, 2005 at 1:19 pm | | Reply

    I just love how the pro-AA types get steamed by the “racist” bake sales about fictional sales of cookies to students at different prices based on their race but actually defend a system that guarantees all black students will have (at least) 73% of their tuition paid while leaving all non-blacks “eligible” to apply for other scholarships, which they may or may not get. If I made this up, no one would believe it.

  7. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 12, 2005 at 2:03 pm | | Reply

    Seriously, actus & Cobra, if there’s nothing wrong with a discounted law-school education, what’s the problem with a discounted imaginary cookie? Obviously, only the intent of the seller — which is the point, yes?

    I’m reminded of the recent controversy at UC/Berkeley about the bombed-out Jerusalem bus that’s being toured around the US in connection with pro-Israel rallies. The people angry about this seem to be by and large the same people who defended the Nablus university students’ realistic recreation of a bombed-out Jerusalem pizzeria a couple of years back as a legitimate work of political art. The only differences between the two “exhibits,” as far as I can see, are that the bus is real (while the Sbarro Cafe only a recreation), and that the bus (unlike the pizzeria) is not, to my knowledge, strewn with realistic, fake dismembered limbs. Oh, and the intended lesson, of course.

    I am curious, by the way, how the recipients of the scholarships go about proving themselves black. Self-identification? Photos?

  8. actus February 12, 2005 at 2:18 pm | | Reply

    ‘Seriously, actus & Cobra, if there’s nothing wrong with a discounted law-school education, what’s the problem with a discounted imaginary cookie?’

    Nothing. I’m just curious what disparity they’re addressing.

  9. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 12, 2005 at 2:27 pm | | Reply

    Ah. I see your point, actus. I suppose it’s conceivable that imaginary-cookie ownership is disproportionately concentrated among white males, but if so the fact has been scandalously underreported in the mainstream media.

  10. notherbob2 February 12, 2005 at 2:46 pm | | Reply

    And don’t forget that these white sexists and racists refuse to actually sell the discounted cookies to the black and female buyers. Just another bait and switch mistreatment of blacks and women. We should organize a lawsuit, organize sit-ins, etc. to compel them to actually sell the discounted cookies. ACTU’s attempt to laugh off this blatant discrimination shows how weak the once strong supporters of racial justice have become. At least we still have Cobra.

  11. actus February 12, 2005 at 2:56 pm | | Reply

    ‘I suppose it’s conceivable that imaginary-cookie ownership is disproportionately concentrated among white males, but if so the fact has been scandalously underreported in the mainstream media.’

    Or maybe their cookies are completely inapposite to law school enrollment. That would be my non-wingnut guess.

  12. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 12, 2005 at 4:11 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    Or maybe their cookies are completely inapposite to law school enrollment. That would be my non-wingnut guess.

    Is anyone who objects to a system setting differential tuition scales by race (which in effect is what the Ole Miss example is) now a “wingnut”?

    OK, you want “apposite”? Suppose the “Republican twits” established a tutoring program in math, the hard sciences, and engineering. Suppose they had a base hourly “white male student” rate, and then discounted for blacks, Hispanics, and women, and charged Asian students double.

    Would that reflect actual disparities sufficiently for you? How about a law-school tutoring program that similarly discounted for blacks and surcharged for Jews? Or a system of lessons on classical instruments where the lesson was cheaper for a male than a female harpist, or a female than a male trombone player, or a white than an Asian violinist?

    None of these are a bit different from the law-school example in essentials. I am hoping your reflexive reaction is something like mine: ick.

  13. actus February 12, 2005 at 4:26 pm | | Reply

    ‘Is anyone who objects to a system setting differential tuition scales by race (which in effect is what the Ole Miss example is) now a “wingnut”?’

    no.

    ‘Would that reflect actual disparities sufficiently for you?’

    yes.

    But I don’t think these guys are serious about going into the tutoring business. I think they’re content with doing inapposite stunts.

  14. notherbob2 February 12, 2005 at 4:31 pm | | Reply

    ACTU, your unsuitable, not pertinent

  15. Cobra February 12, 2005 at 4:33 pm | | Reply

    Michelle writes:

    >>>Is anyone who objects to a system setting differential tuition scales by race (which in effect is what the Ole Miss example is) now a “wingnut”?”

    John writes:

    >>>I just love how the pro-AA types get steamed by the “racist” bake sales about fictional sales of cookies to students at different prices based on their race but actually defend a system that guarantees all black students will have (at least) 73% of their tuition paid while leaving all non-blacks “eligible” to apply for other scholarships, which they may or may not get. If I made this up, no one would believe it.”

    Well, in the interest of clarity on this issue, I took the liberty of actually GOING to the Ole Miss website, and looking up the Scholarships available for the Law School. The list is dated 1998, which means more or less could be available today, but here it is:

    JEFFRY CRAWFORD ADAMS MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP

    FRANK W. ALEXANDER MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP ENDOWMENT

    ARMSTRONG, ALLEN, PREWITT, GENTRY, JOHNSTON, AND HOLMES FIRM SCHOLARSHIP

    JEAN AND JOHN M. BEE SCHOLARSHIP IN LAW

    EDWARD J. BOGEN MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP IN LAW

    THE FRANCIS S. BOWLING SCHOLARSHIP IN LAW

    RAYMOND L. BROWN SCHOLARSHIP ENDOWMENT

    EDMUND L. BRUNINI SR. SCHOLARSHIP IN LAW

    BRYANT, CLARK, DUKES, BLAKESLEE, RAMSAY, AND HAMMOND SCHOLARSHIP IN LAW

    DEAN J. W. BUNKLEY JR. MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP

    HARRY L. CASE JR. MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP

    CHRISTOPHER P. CHARLTON MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP IN LAW ENDOWMENT

    JUDGE ARTHUR B. CLARK JR. AND ARTHUR B. CLARK SR. MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP IN LAW

    CLAUDE F. CLAYTON MEMORIAL SCHOLARSHIP

    HUGH C.

  16. John Rosenberg February 12, 2005 at 5:02 pm | | Reply

    cobra – Fine. So you’d have no objection if Ole Miss or some other school guaranteed that every white and Asian who was admitted would get at least a 73% discount on their tuition, and blacks could apply for other scholarship aid? I didn’t think that would bother you, because your conception of fairness does not require that all people be treated equally without regard to their race.

  17. notherbob2 February 12, 2005 at 6:23 pm | | Reply

    Bravo John! Your comment nails the perfidy of Cobra’a position. Wish I had thought of it. He’ll not be able reply to it, excepting one of his “cloud of dust” or “spurt of ink” responses (while making a hasty retreat).

  18. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 12, 2005 at 6:26 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    You’re right that there are a bewildering number of scholarships in law at Ole Miss. If you go to the current Law School catalog (up on their site in .pdf), there’s a more current list, I think even longer than yours, and with some more detail.

    There are, I would guess, a lot of different sorts of things in that list, and such the one thing they don’t supply is the actual value of each award, one can only guess. A number of the scholarships are specified as triennial, and those I would assume are three-year awards, and full tuition or nearly so — basically a complete “sponsorship” of one student through three years of law school. Others are given annually, and some of those may be three-year awards as well. (I went through Cal on a four-year full scholarship that was awarded every year to a new bunch of students on the basis of one hell of a large alumnus gift.) But some clearly aren’t, like the ones stipulating that the recipient be a second- or third-year student.

    Many plainly stipulate financial need, and I’d guess that what we have here is that familiar creature, the alumni fund-raising incentive: Give us a nice lump sum, and we’ll name a scholarship after it in perpetuity! This is standard fund-raising practice. The university has to supply financial aid to students who can’t pay the tuition up-front, and to honor the donors who help supply it, it is announced as named scholarships. It’s the same thing as an endowed professorship, or an endowed Symphony chair, only on a smaller scale.

    On the other hand, some other items on the list are clearly prizes for particular academic achievements, almost certainly not involving large amounts of money, like the one for the highest grade in a bankruptcy-specialty course, or the one for the best environmental-law essay.

    Some require that the candidate be a resident of a particular county. One that I spotted is for female students only. And at least three are for “minority” students only. (None, I may add, is for whites only.)

    In short: A jumble of large-scale sponsorships of individual students, financial aid embellished with donor names, awards (large and small, probably chiefly small) for academic achievement once in school, and eccentric bequests, with no clear picture of how much any of them amount to.

    But it would appear that only one group of students is positively guaranteed a scholarship regardless of financial need. How this does not amount to a two-tier tuition structure is a mystery to me.

  19. Cobra February 12, 2005 at 7:07 pm | | Reply

    Michelle,

    We disagree on many things on this blog, but one thing I notice is that you will call facts as you see it, whether it supports your position or not, and I commend you for it. I admire the way your mind works as we hash out these debates. My point in my argument on this particular case is obvious, and you have clearly defined it in your post. We don’t KNOW what any of those 152 white students are paying in tuition at Ole Miss. Given the fact that there are far more than half as many scholarships available as there are “scholars”, I’d wonder if ANYBODY is paying full tuition there. You’re probably right in saying there may be more than a few of them on full scholarships. My issue is the “selective outrage” over the minority scholarship.

    John writes:

    >>>I didn’t think that would bother you, because your conception of fairness does not require that all people be treated equally without regard to their race.”

    American society hasn’t and still doesn’t treat people equally without regard to their race. Why are you holding me to a higher standard than American society?

    Notherbob writes:

    >>>He’ll not be able reply to it, excepting one of his “cloud of dust” or “spurt of ink” responses (while making a hasty retreat).”

    Cobras aren’t known to retreat, though they may seek the comfort of shadow, as they watch their victims slowly succomb to a swift and decisive attack.

    –Cobra

  20. notherbob2 February 12, 2005 at 8:32 pm | | Reply

    “American society hasn’t and still doesn’t treat people equally without regard to their race.” – Cobra

    Unless Cobra follows the lead of the CNN executive and tries to issue a clarifying statement, that is game, set and match.

  21. John Rosenberg February 12, 2005 at 8:34 pm | | Reply

    American society hasn’t and still doesn’t treat people equally without regard to their race. Why are you holding me to a higher standard than American society?

    cobra – You’ve really got to cut this out. People are going to get the idea that I’m paying you to be my straight man.

    OF COURSE I hold you to the same standard as American society. The only difference is that when American society engages in or tolerates discrimination it violates one of its most fundamental principles and can be held to account based on thise principles; when you advoacate discrimination (as you do incessantly) you call it a positive good.

  22. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 12, 2005 at 8:36 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Many thanks for the kind compliments ;-) I may think you’re mostly wrong about almost every subject we’ve ever discussed, but I, too, admire your willingness to follow through with an argument, and your diligence in backing up your points.

    Now, in this case I think you’ve missed a couple of points in my post above. First, with respect to that list of scholarships, you need to bear in mind that the list includes every monetary award available to a law student at the school, so you aren’t talking about 170 students (minority students are eligible for all the other scholarships too, as you can see from the .pdf), but something a bit under three times that number, allowing for expected attrition.

    Second, as I said, a large number of the awards clearly don’t cover all three years of law school, either because they stipulate that the winner be a second- or third-year student, or because they’re prizes awarded for work in a stipulated field done while enrolled at the school.

    Third, many of these awards are obviously financial aid given with a donor’s name attached. That sort of award generally gets given to any student in good academic standing who needs the money. There’s no merit in it, and — again — no racial restrictions.

    Fourth, there are those few strange awards given only to residents of a particular county, &c. I don’t like these very much, as you can probably guess. Still, in the context of that list they’re small potatoes, and I would guess that they function mostly, again, as financial aid, a way of giving Scholarship Y to one student because another student’s need can be covered by (county-specific) Scholarship X.

    I don’t mind that sort of arrangement much in the context of trying to get all the students needing financial aid funded. It’s rather as though a donor had left a scholarship bequest to a music history department with the stipulation that the money be given only to students writing dissertations on 18th-c. chamber music. Obviously, whenever you had such a student, you’d draw on that particular endowment, rather than on more general bequests, and that’d free up money for another student doing some other subject. All very logical.

    (You will notice, as I said, that these sorts of shenanigans involve trying to get financial aid to students who need it, at the least possible cost to the university. But I see no indication in the article about Ole Miss that the 73% discount on a law school education applied only to black students who couldn’t afford it otherwise. It was a flat-out, guaranteed discount for being black, on a “Going Out Of Business Sale” scale.)

    But I don’t like the race/country of origin/gender/county of residence/sexual orientation/&c. varieties of this, because they don’t stipulate what the student is going to do, but what s/he “is.” And even so, there’s this telling difference between the county-of-residence version and the black-scholarship one: the county scholarships stipulate that the recipient has to be from a particular county; they don’t guarantee that every law student from the county gets a scholarship. There’s a large difference.

  23. Laura February 12, 2005 at 9:28 pm | | Reply

    Cobra: “My issue is the ‘selective outrage’ over the minority scholarship.”

    Is your outrage not selective?

  24. Cobra February 13, 2005 at 1:02 am | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>OF COURSE I hold you to the same standard as American society. The only difference is that when American society engages in or tolerates discrimination it violates one of its most fundamental principles and can be held to account based on thise principles; when you advoacate discrimination (as you do incessantly) you call it a positive good.”

    Actually, John, which fundamental principle does it violate? Don’t give me the “We hold these truths..” stuff from the Declaration of Independence, which was primarily written by slave owners. Don’t give me the all white, all male Constitutional Congress. And exactly who is “holding people account” for violating these “fundamental principles?” Hassert and Delay in the House? Frist and Lott in the Senate? Reinquist and Scalia in the USSC? Cheney and Dubya? Karl Rove? Are you kidding me? You’re telling me with a straight face, that those afforementioned white conservative males are going to do a 180% turn from the paths of their white conservative male forefathers and act in the best interest of underrepresented minorities? I’m nearly falling off my chair, John. Please tell me you’re JOKING.

    PLEASE Tell me when American Society treated ALL OF ITS CITIZENS without discrimination. Which decade was that? And don’t hide behind some lofty, pie in the sky beautitudes about the long delayed constitutional amendments, or civil rights acts on paper. I’m talking about AMERICAN SOCIETY. Tell me how those “fundamental principles” prevented slavery, genocide, Jim Crow, internment camps, and other attrocities.

    Tell me where these “fundamental principles” are when I pile on link after link of housing, lending, law enforcement, and hiring discrimination? It’s like you’re genuinely SURPRISED when I point these situations out.

    It’s as though we’re discussing two different American Societies, John–to paraphrase Rumsfeld–“between the America we have, and the America you wish it to be.”

    OF COURSE I believe in Affirmative Action to help counteract a society that is still racist. When American Society is no longer racist against minorities, then I will not support Affirmative Action. I’ve made that point time and time again. I know this, because studies show that a white ex-convict will have an easier time getting a job than a black man with no criminal record.

    http://www.jsonline.com/bym/biz2biz/oct03/175535.asp

    Conscious African-Americans already know the fix is in, John. That’s why I support Affirmative Action without guilt or shame, because I KNOW that ELIMINATING the program will do NOTHING to rectify the situation where white ex-cons have an edge on blacks without criminal records, or a laundry list of other societal inequities.

    –Cobra

  25. John Rosenberg February 13, 2005 at 8:14 am | | Reply

    cobra – I can’t tell you how glad I am that you’re here, and commenting frequently. My only concern, as I’ve mentioned, is that people will think I’ve paid you to say these things, or I’m writing them under an alias. If I attributed the opinions that you express to opponents of the priniple that people should be treated without regard to their race, I would be accused of attempting to create a grossly exaggerated caricature.

  26. Cobra February 13, 2005 at 11:54 am | | Reply

    John,

    Happy to be of service to the community! I like the commentary here, too. Especially the part where AAA-types offer practically no response, rebuttal or explanation for the reality of racial disparity in America and anti-minority statistics I provide

    incessantly here.

    That doesn’t come as any surprise to me.

    Michelle wrote in her response to Actus:

    “Ah. I see your point, actus. I suppose it’s conceivable that imaginary-cookie ownership is disproportionately concentrated among white males, but if so the fact has been scandalously underreported in the mainstream media.”

    Just mark me down as the “racial osbudsman” of the blog, always ready to supply those “scandalously underreported” facts and figures on this blog.

    –Cobra

  27. Martin A. Knight February 14, 2005 at 8:02 am | | Reply

    Cobra & Actus,

    Back in the late 80s / early 90s, a public school in San Francisco (I think) attempted to institute a more “racially sensitive” marking scheme for their students, i.e. grades were to be calculated based on the race of the student.

    It went something like this;

    92+% = A for Asian students.

    90+% = A for White students.

    85+% = A for Black & Hispanic students.

    85+% = B for Asian students.

    82+% = B for White students.

    79+% = B for Black & Hispanic students.

    This would have applied to all students irrespective of socio-economic background. I believe an outcry from the Asian students (a lot of whom came from poor immigrant homes) and some of the working class white parents collapsed the idea before it came to full fruition.

    If this were under consideration in your town/city, would you be for or against it? Why?

  28. Martin A. Knight February 14, 2005 at 8:05 am | | Reply

    Cobra & Actus (sorry guys),

    Another question, if you please …

    I have often heard/read, especially in light of the recent attempts by many universities to sideline the SATs and other standardized tests in evaluating applications, that one, if not the major reason why Black students (at all socio-economic levels) do so poorly in standardized tests is that the tests are biased against minorities.

    I have always been confused by this. And for some reason, I believe you two adhere to this belief (that standardized tests are biased against black students making it impossible for them to pass at rates comparable to that of whites and Asians).

    Since an exam is just a series of questions, it must be the questions themselves contain the bias. So can you guys give me an example of a question (or topic i.e. trigonometry, algebra, set theory, statistics, etc.) in Mathematics (or any other subject) that is inherently more difficult for a black student to answer than a white or Asian student?

    For example; is a question like the following, biased?

    If 2x + 7y = 23 &

    6x + 3y = 15

    what are x & y?

  29. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 14, 2005 at 4:45 pm | | Reply

    No, Martin, I don’t think Cobra and actus really think black children aren’t capable of seeing that you just multiply the first equation by three, subtract the second from it, get y, and then get x. The contention is that a combination of effects of past and present discrimination (lower income, lower net worth, fewer educated parents, racially-isolated neighborhoods) and intra-cultural influences (though they are loath to mention those) handicap black youth. In other words, it’s not that the question is biased so much as that the testees aren’t equally prepared.

    I happen not to think that some of those explanations hold water, and I think that those that remain might be met by boosting poor students rather than black students per se. But that’s just me ;-)

  30. Martin A. Knight February 14, 2005 at 5:21 pm | | Reply

    Thanks Michelle … but there really is a huge substantial part of academia and the Left (being redundant, aren’t I?) that have said that standardized tests are racially (not just socio-economically) biased i.e. Richard Parsons’ son would find it harder to pass those exams than an upper middle class white student.

    Another reason why I think the Left believes this is the fact that the Left has done nothing to get the level of preparation of black testees up (this would require enraging the Teachers’ Unions) but have instead focused on getting the tests scrapped entirely.

  31. Nels Nelson February 14, 2005 at 6:47 pm | | Reply

    Bravo for throwing a math question out there, Martin. Every article I’ve read about the racial bias of the SAT gives only verbal exam examples, particularly those related to vocabulary, but apparently the white-black score gap is actually more pronounced for the math section than it is for the verbal. It’s been a while since I took the SAT but, as best I recall, the math questions consisted primarily of universal numerals, operators, etc., with little mention of polo clubs or stock car racing.

    Why this gap? I don’t know – there are probably many factors – but high on my list of potential culprits would be the quality of parenting. According to statistics from 2000, 43% of black children live with a single mother, as opposed to 12% of white children. 31% of black children live in poverty, as opposed to 13% of white children. Together these result in a lot of kids spending a lot of time without any individual attention, and mothers too tired when they get home to do much more than sit the kids down in front of a video.

  32. Cobra February 14, 2005 at 8:11 pm | | Reply

    Martin,

    Before I venture off from a thread about the caustic campus conservative cookie capers and into the SAT debate again, it would help to get a little incite first from you.

    I know privacy is an important aspect of the blogosphere, so without getting into specific scores, how well did YOU perform on the SAT, or standardized tests? Were you above the national mean in math, verbal or both? Since you’re an African American– if you DID perform above the national average on the test, what would you say was the reason? After all, if you performed well on the SATs as a black man, that would all but dismiss arguments that genetics are an issue, right?

    I’ll give a little disclosure on my behalf. I grew up in a predominantly white, fairly affluent city/school district. There were hundreds of books, and encyclopedias in the home I grew up in, and since I was an avid reader as a child, my comprehension level was always pretty high. Teachers in my elementary school recognized this, and set me on a track with students of a similiar level. I began taking standardized tests of one sort or another from very early on. I actually took a version of the SAT around the sixth or seventh grade as I recall. By the time the SAT that “counted” came around years later, there was no mystique left. I was prepared. If my family had remained in Newark, NJ during the late 60’s and early 70’s, I seriously doubt I would’ve had the same opportunities or experiences.

    In many ways, I’m the living “exhibit A” of Nels Nelson’s explanation, and I salute him for another on target post.

    Michelle,

    Excellent post. You said it almost as well as I could’ve.

    Almost….;-)

    –Cobra

  33. Cobra February 14, 2005 at 8:13 pm | | Reply

    Martin,

    I meant “insight”, not “incite,” though I’m sure the freudian slip isn’t lost on some folks in here.

    ;-)

    –Cobra

  34. Stephen February 14, 2005 at 8:17 pm | | Reply

    “Happy to be of service to the community! I like the commentary here, too. Especially the part where AAA-types offer practically no response, rebuttal or explanation for the reality of racial disparity in America and anti-minority statistics I provide incessantly here.”

    I’ve offered the explanation repeatedly, Cobra. The scam game you are playing is the answer.

    The reason you cannot compete is that you are obsessed with the hustling and scamming. I don’t buy the notion that you speak for anybody but Cobra. Pretending that you speak for blacks is the key element of the scam. You can’t compete, by your own admission. That’s the sum total of your contributions.

    Try working instead of scamming, Cobra.

    And, now let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. Why the Cobra image? Couldn’t be that this was also the moniker of the Symbionese Liberation Army? When will you give up your gang membership, Cobra? Probably about the time you decide to compete by working, instead of by scamming.

    Stop trying to scam me, Cobra. It’s crap. You are a scam artist, speaking solely for yourself. If you would try working, you might be able to compete. I have no sympathy for your pleas for an exemption for working. What a con artist you are!

  35. Stephen February 14, 2005 at 8:24 pm | | Reply

    Cobra, give me a simple answer for a change.

    Why are you afraid to compete fairly against white? And don’t give me a lot of crap about how you are a spokesman for the black race. That’s nonsense.

    I want to know why the individual, Cobra, is too much of a coward and too much of an incompetent to compete fair and square against a white man.

    You argue incessantly that you are doomed to failure in a fair fight. Why?

  36. Cobra February 14, 2005 at 9:50 pm | | Reply

    Stephen writes:

    >>>And, now let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. Why the Cobra image? Couldn’t be that this was also the moniker of the Symbionese Liberation Army? ”

    ROTFLMAO!!! Just when you think you’ve heard it all…Stephen, my brother, I’m stupified. I’m just gonna grab another cold one, dial up your blog photo, and just PICTURE you speaking the words you type.

    You’re too precious for words.

    –Cobra

  37. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 14, 2005 at 10:00 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Excellent post. You said it almost as well as I could’ve.

    Almost….;-)

    Well, no one was stopping you from posting on the subject yourself, I trust. May we peons be granted a glimpse of the superior version, or must it remain forever a vision? Or, on the contrary, is it what you posted just above?

  38. Cobra February 14, 2005 at 11:10 pm | | Reply

    Michelle,

    Not at all. You DID have an EXCELLENT POST. The only thing I did with my response was to personalize what you and Nels defined.

    The almost was in jest.

    –Cobra

  39. Stephen February 15, 2005 at 1:46 am | | Reply

    You didn’t answer the question, Cobra.

    Why are you afraid to compete fairly one-to-one against me?

    And, why aren’t you ashamed of this?

    And, yes, the Cobra moniker has precisely the lineage I suggested. You posting name is derived from a group that advocated racial warfare.

    You always dodge the question, Cobra. I want to know why you are unable to compete. And, don’t give me the “I’m a spokesman for my race garbage.” You’re not.

  40. Chetly Zarko February 15, 2005 at 3:25 pm | | Reply

    Cobra writes:

    Conscious African-Americans already know the fix is in, John. That’s why I support Affirmative Action without guilt or shame, because I KNOW that ELIMINATING the program will do NOTHING to rectify the situation where white ex-cons have an edge on blacks without criminal records, or a laundry list of other societal inequities.

    You may be correct, and government should enforce the Civil Rights Act and other protections against discrimination against blacks, but let’s ask the question in reverse, Cobra…

    Does “affirmative action,” as you label it, do ANYTHING to rectify the situation? If it doesn’t, eliminating the program won’t hurt, and may even make social progress more possible by revealing the inequities for what they are and forcing politicians to address them with better solutions. As long as certain leaders cling to a political band-aid, the wound is hidden and the real conversation can’t begin.

    Chet

  41. John Rosenberg February 15, 2005 at 3:52 pm | | Reply

    cobra:

    I like the commentary here, too. Especially the part where AAA-types offer practically no response, rebuttal or explanation for the reality of racial disparity in America and anti-minority statistics I provide incessantly here.

    Yes, you do point incessantly to the reality of racial disparity, and the reason no one bothers to rebut it is that, usually, no one disagrees. What we disagree with is your response to that reality. Our view is that what the Constitution provides, and the country promises, to all its citizens is equal treatment. Not equality of condition, or “parity.”

    Your view, by contrast, is that because discrimination has existed, and still exists to a certain degree, the principle barring discrimination on the basis of race is worthy of no respect. Worse — not only do you not respect it, but you urge everyone to disregard it by affirmatively engaging in the discrimination the rest of us abhor. It’s as though you said that since murder is still prevalent, the admonition not to murder should be disregarded whenever murder is deemed to be in your interest.

    The good news is that you will not persuade many here, or even not here. The bad news is that if you did, you and yours would be certain to suffer the most, for the very reasons you incessantly provide. In fact, the people who are currently suffering the most from the doctrines you promote are minorities themselves: they are taught by lessons more powerful than words that when they succeed it is not because of their own accomplishments but because of racial preferences extended to them out of guilt or silly notions about “diversity,” and when they fail the chip your doctrine places on their shoulder tells them that they did not fail because of anything they did or did not do but because the society is still out to get them.

    How sad.

  42. Cobra February 15, 2005 at 7:59 pm | | Reply

    Chetly Zarko writes:

    >>>You may be correct, and government should enforce the Civil Rights Act and other protections against discrimination against blacks, but let’s ask the question in reverse, Cobra…

    Does “affirmative action,” as you label it, do ANYTHING to rectify the situation?”

    Absolutely, Chetly. Affirmative Action is a key to a door that is frequently locked. I don’t believe it’s a cure-all, but I believe it’s neccessary in a nation that in my estimation, is still racist. You may disagree with my estimation, and that’s fine. I can provide volumes of research on anti-black hiring, housing, law enforcement discrimination, but as John alludes in his post above, it’s a moot point. Most of the Anti-Affirmative Action types concede the points I make about the reality of discrimination against African Americans. The evidence is irrefutable.

    Given that, Affirmative Action is a technique that allows many of the underrepresented to have access where mountains of evidence suggest it would not exist otherwise.

    >>>If it doesn’t, eliminating the program won’t hurt, and may even make social progress more possible by revealing the inequities for what they are and forcing politicians to address them with better solutions.”

    The conservative mantra, especially the mantra of those predominantly white conservative foundations that fund Ward Connerly’s organizations,(http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm) and by extrapolation, YOURS, is THE REDUCTION of central government, the “reforming” (some say, destruction) of social safety net programs, the hamstringing of discrimination and bias suits, and of course, torpedoing civil or gender rights legislation wherever they find it. In essence, the very remedies YOU suggest for the issues are being undermined by the organizations who fund you. If you’re suggesting, that these predominantly white conservative foundations, the politicians and movements they support have ANY INFINITESIMAL INCLINATION to

    “address (irrefutable anti-minority discrimination)them with better solutions”, as you put it, please tell me where is it? This nation is 229 years old. The group that was the consistant, most vociferous opposition to damn near EVERY CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT in this nation’s history is the same group you’re telling me will ride in to the rescue after Affirmative Action is torn down? Oh yeah, ol’ Rep.John Pappageorge is going to roll up his sleeves and lead the charge to fight anti-minority discrimination in Michigan.

    >>>Troy, Michigan Republican State Rep. John Pappageorge, a Michigan Bush campaign Co-Chair, was quoted in July 16 edition of the Detroit Free Press as saying, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election.” Blacks comprise 83 percent of Detroit’s population, and the city routinely elects Democratic candidates by substantial margins.”

    http://beyondvoting.org/article.php?id=91

    Come on, Chetly.

    At least John writes this admission in his post:

    ” Our view is that what the Constitution provides, and the country promises, to all its citizens is equal treatment. Not equality of condition, or “parity.”

    Which is code for:

    “Yeah, we know minorities get a raw deal. Get over it.”

    Chetly also writes:

    >>> As long as certain leaders cling to a political band-aid, the wound is hidden and the real conversation can’t begin.”

    Wounds are not “hidden” from the wounded.

    John writes:

    >>>It’s as though you said that since murder is still prevalent, the admonition not to murder should be disregarded whenever murder is deemed to be in your interest.”

    It’s interesting that you use the term “murder”, instead of killing. Murder, for most intents and purposes, is illegal in America. “Killing” is not neccessarily illegal, and a far better analogy for the topic of discrimination.

    >>>The good news is that you will not persuade many here, or even not here.”

    I’ve said many times that I won’t change many minds here. I simply advocate my positions, and fling my convictions to the world. I’m on record as opposing what I believe is a right winged backlash aimed at turning back the clock on minority progress. When people load in internet searches about the various topics broached here, they will come across these threads, (high Google positions all) and know that I never backed down, or sold out to those whose actions would indavertantly or purposely put underrepresented minorities at a FURTHER disadvantage than a racist American Society already has them.

    >>> In fact, the people who are currently suffering the most from the doctrines you promote are minorities themselves: they are taught by lessons more powerful than words that when they succeed it is not because of their own accomplishments but because of racial preferences extended to them out of guilt or silly notions about “diversity,” and when they fail the chip your doctrine places on their shoulder tells them that they did not fail because of anything they did or did not do but because the society is still out to get them.”

    And that’s where we differ so much, John. Like I said before. I don’t believe you’re a racist, or fail to argue your points based on principle alone. But listen to your own words describing “me and mine.” Those telling four words:

    “…and when they fail”

    Not “if”, but “WHEN”.

    It’s as if it’s a FOREGONE CONCLUSION to you. No qualifier like “some” or “many”, or even “most.”

    Just flat out…

    “AND WHEN THEY FAIL…”

    And you accuse ME of promoting damaging doctrines? I freely admit I constantly warn African Americans of the dangers of racism in American society, with evidence to support those warnings. YOUR apparent message, if I’m to interpret that post correctly, to African Americans is that even if you get a position due to affirmative action, you’re destined to fail in it anyway, so save yourself the time and effort.

    And you have to ASK why I’m indefatigable in posting to this blog?

    –Cobra

  43. leo cruz February 16, 2005 at 3:38 am | | Reply

    CobrA,

    yOU STILL DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. bTW, YOUR HERO tURNER AT uVA MANAGED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF BLACKS AT UVA thru good old fashioned race preferences. That’s right Cobra, the fix is in as you say. You can see for yourself how it was done at the CEO website. BTW, UVA is under investigation right now by th4 Office of Civil Rights for practicing race preferences, at the least the Office of civil rights no longer toes the line of professional race preferentialist like Mary Frances Berry, lani Guinier, the NAACP, Bill Lann Lee etc. get the picture? AS I see it, the path of de facto self segregation chosen by whites in San Francisco in their choice of migrating to private schools has not helped them much as far as getting to berkeley is concerned, eh Cobra? How will the white citizens of Charlottesville be helped in their quest to get their children inside UVA – Charlottesville by moving into the suburbs? I fear the the story will be same as that of the white parents in San francisco. If you would like to know, the Chinese immigrant kids at the Lower eAst Side of NYC attending SEward high school have average scores equal to that of average scores of the white middle class kids attending Tottenville high school in Staten Island in the Math portion of the New York State Regents Exams. Maybe if we put them in Newark public schools they will have the same performance eh?

    ChetKy Zarko,

    Hey buddy , when are you and Jennifer Gratz demand that all kinds of preferences be banned in the U of MIchigan – Ann Arbor Admissions Index?. That’s your job along with MCRI and the members of the Union for United Michigan. Why aren’t the newspapers like the Detroit Free Press talking about this stuff, huh Chetly? Shame on you Chetky…..

    Leo Cruz

  44. leo cruz February 16, 2005 at 3:41 am | | Reply

    CobrA,

    yOU STILL DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. bTW, YOUR HERO tURNER AT uVA MANAGED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF BLACKS AT UVA thru good old fashioned race preferences. That’s right Cobra, the fix is in as you say. You can see for yourself how it was done at the CEO website. BTW, UVA is under investigation right now by th4 Office of Civil Rights for practicing race preferences, at the least the Office of civil rights no longer toes the line of professional race preferentialists like Mary Frances Berry, lani Guinier, the NAACP, Bill Lann Lee etc. get the picture? AS I see it, the path of de facto self segregation chosen by whites in San Francisco in their choice of migrating to private schools has not helped them much as far as getting to berkeley is concerned, eh Cobra? How will the white citizens of Charlottesville be helped in their quest to get their children inside UVA – Charlottesville by moving into the suburbs? I fear the the story will be same as that of the white parents in San francisco. If you would like to know, the Chinese immigrant kids at the Lower eAst Side of NYC attending SEward high school have average scores equal to that of average scores of the white middle class kids attending Tottenville high school in Staten Island in the Math portion of the New York State Regents Exams. Maybe if we put them in Newark public schools they will have the same performance eh?

    ChetKy Zarko,

    Hey buddy , when are you and Jennifer Gratz going to demand that all kinds of preferences be banned in the U of MIchigan – Ann Arbor Admissions Index?. That’s your job along with MCRI and the members of the Union for United Michigan. Why aren’t the newspapers like the Detroit Free Press talking about this stuff, huh Chetly? Shame on you Chetky…..

    Leo Cruz

  45. JL February 16, 2005 at 6:27 am | | Reply

    Cobra —

    What exactly do you disagree with in regards to Horowitz and the Bell Curve?

    And given that minorities are actually OVERREPRESENTED in every job that requires any kind of aptitude testing, how can you argue with a straight face that our society is discriminatory towards minorities?

    Can’t you get beyond your own narrow self-interest enough to support the basic idea that everyone should be treated by the same standard? Or is your own advancement really more important than mutual respect between people of different groups?

  46. Anonymous February 16, 2005 at 7:40 am | | Reply

    “… preferences once established will be difficult to alter or abolish; human nature suggests a preferred minority will be no more willing than others to relinquish an advantage once it is bestowed.”

    New Deal Liberal Judge Stanley Mosk, from Bakke.

    Who here wants to bet that Cobra has probably had far more advantages and opportunities than many, if not most, whites and asians? Yet, he certainly seems unwilling to relinquish artificial and extraneous advantages.

    What’s funny is that, as goofy as legacy preferences may be, you never hear some legacy beneficiary come on here and argue for why such preferences are justified. At least they have the shame to keep quiet about unfair systems and avantages.

    I guess if you can manage to consider yourself a victim, then you can justify pretty much any injustice.

    Cobra, why don’t you move to Africa for a few years, and find out how simply wonderful it is to work in a place where everyone is like you. Then, maybe you’ll have a different attitude about the opporunities present here. It’s no coincidence that african immigrants have a much different (and more positive) perspective about our society — they don’t seem nearly as bothered by issues of discrimination, seeing simply the opportunity that exists here for anyone willing to apply themselves.

    Ultimately, I don’t blame anyone for taking advantage of the system as it’s currently constructed, especially if they were economically disadvantaged. As a minority who actually grew up without money, I know what it feels like to overcome obstacles. However, the salient point in my experience (and in anyone’s, really) is not ethnicity, but economics. Do you really feel Michael Powell deserves preferences? If so, I feel sorry for how much you’ve been blinded by those whose political future is grounded in ethnic division. I can still get behind economic considerations in college admissions, but I cannot, after looking at the actual evidence, support purely ethnic-based preferences that elevate wealthy blacks and hispanics over poor whites and Asians. And you should be ashamed for trying to do. Even if all your cited “studies” are valid (an unlikely proposition), they only justify helping those individuals who have actually emerged economically disadvantaged as a result — and many clearly have not.

    Again, please try to see that everyone in society benefits from policies that focus on actual individual opportunities, not on ethnic stereotypes. I assume you’d prefer if your children grew up in a more color-blind society. What kind of policies do you think will accomplish that? Ones that give blanket preferences to every minority, regardless of circumstances? Ones that assumes the inability to compete on the part of every minority, regardless of circumstance? Or ones that help only those who needs and dserves help, as measured by actual academic and economic obstacles? Which system is more likely to lead to respect for the accomplishments of minorities, and greater mutual respect overall?

    Please, for the sake of your children (or future children), if not for yourself, take off the blinders you appear to be sporting, and look at the situation objectively. Do you really want the accomplishments of your children to be viewed as nothing more than an unearned handout? Or would you rather they have the chance to simply be viewed as people? One set of policies clearly encourages the former, the other encourages the latter.

    Even if you’re just going to act in your own self-interest, you should presumably consider your kids’ interest as well. As a minority, I sure as … don’t support programs which will simply perpetuate negative thinking towards my own kids.

  47. Cobra February 16, 2005 at 8:09 am | | Reply

    An anonymous poster writes:

    >>>Even if you’re just going to act in your own self-interest, you should presumably consider your kids’ interest as well. As a minority, I sure as … don’t support programs which will simply perpetuate negative thinking towards my own kids.”

    JL writes:

    >>>Can’t you get beyond your own narrow self-interest enough to support the basic idea that everyone should be treated by the same standard? Or is your own advancement really more important than mutual respect between people of different groups?”

    Why are you admonishing ME for “narrow self-interest” when American history and current society is rife with inequities and preferences that benefit whites, particularly males? That’s why Anti Affirmative Action Types CONCEDE facts and figures to me, because they KNOW what reality is. They may put on a dismissive tone to the oceans of data that shows white privilege in America

    Didn’t you just quote the “new deal liberal judge” here:

    “… preferences once established will be difficult to alter or abolish; human nature suggests a preferred minority will be no more willing than others to relinquish an advantage once it is bestowed.”

    That is a perfect description of why it took almost TWO CENTURIES before African Americans received Civil Rights on paper, yet you’re using this quote to attack me?

    As for “Anonymous”, Is this statement to say that you value the opinions of strangers over the possible acheivements of yourself or your children?

    Leo,

    Getting into Berkeley is not the ONLY issue in regards to Affirmative Action. Look at the effect Prop 209 has on Asian American contractors in San Francisco.

    http://www.asianweek.com/021899/mainfeature.html

    I suppose you will attack them as well, but…

    –Cobra

  48. Chetly Zarko February 16, 2005 at 5:23 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    John’s “when they fail,” again, is out of grammatical context. It was part of a conditional sentence, separated by commas, which makes it hypothetical. You have no qualms about taking people out of context.

    More importantly, why is that you believe that conservatives never have any ideas for social reform or solving social problems, or that organizations like Bradley are ill-motivated (they may or may not be wrong)? The heart of this debate is the heart of liberalism v. conservatism: cultural relativism v. objectivism – use of standards in teaching v. elimination of standards – self-help v. government-help. I’m not so much of a “conservative” that I believe in rigid adherence to foolish standards (“… a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin…”), and some of the new testing standards are that, but I believe and know some “liberal” teachers (in high schools) that believe that we must at least restore the concept from an education system that has foregone it. The argument that testing is by nature “racist” ignores the reality that the root causes are social and economic, and in fact, is a racist argument itself because it subsumes race has something to do with performance (which is John’s point about preferences fostering a misplaced belief in some that “whitey” is keeping them down). I’m not so conservative either, that I believe there is no role for government (there are government programs that can address disparity, and there are government programs that can foster it and create dependency, and that is more of a question of design than goal) whatsoever, but my inclination is always for less govt when possible and my belief is not that government drives individual or social progress, but that individuals do.

  49. Martin A. Knight February 16, 2005 at 5:37 pm | | Reply

    In answer to your question, 91st and 83rd percentile verbal and math respectively (SAT) … 93rd and 80th percentile, verbal and analytical respectively (GRE). But my grades are really peripheral to the point I am making here. I have heard or read, a countless number times from people like the President of UCLA (among other University Presidents), NAACP bigshots, defenders of racial preferences everywhere, etc. that the SAT and all other standardized tests should be scrapped (else they should ignored when it comes to evaluating college applications) because they’re “racially biased.”

    What does this mean? Obviously, it means that they think SAT and NEAP questions must be inherently more difficult for black students to answer than white and Asian students … or at the very least, the subjects covered by the SATs and NEAP are somehow harder to teach black students, no matter how much they want to learn. I have not yet met one single racial preference proponent who does not believe that standardized tests are “racially biased”. Furthermore. not a single one of them seemed to believe that socio-economic status, K-12 school quality or preparation mattered, because every single one of them (including yourself) would admit a black applicant who happens to be a multi-millionaire’s child from an intact home (don’t try to tell me they don’t exist) over a higher scoring white or Asian applicant from a poor and broken home.

    I personally believe that there is no reason why I should automatically expect less from a black student than I would from a white or Asian student. And that is exactly what you’re advocating because you are saying that all black applicants regardless of their background should recieve preferences. You got yourself prepared for the SATs like I did and I’m assuming you did well and probably would have gotten into college with your grades no matter what race you were. Why do you believe that it simply is not possible for larger numbers of black students than just you and me to do the same?

    You also credit the environment in which you grew up with your success. I also owe something to the environment I grew up in. I had parents whose motto was “Excel or Die” and excellent teachers who believed in the same philosophy. There were kids (black) in my class who came from broken and poor homes and surpassed me in many things (most got into college and continued to excel there) … so even if one comes from a broken home, a good education can make all the difference.

    Either way, I answered a question from you … could you answer a question from me? I’ll cut and paste it from above: Back in the late 80s / early 90s, a public school in San Francisco (I think) attempted to institute a more “racially sensitive” marking scheme for their students, i.e. grades were to be calculated based on the race of the student.

    It went something like this;

    92+% = A for Asian students.

    90+% = A for White students.

    85+% = A for Black & Hispanic students.

    85+% = B for Asian students.

    82+% = B for White students.

    79+% = B for Black & Hispanic students.

    This would have applied to all students irrespective of socio-economic background. I believe an outcry from the Asian students (a lot of whom came from poor immigrant homes) and some of the working class white parents collapsed the idea before it came to full fruition.

    If this were under consideration in your town/city, would you be for or against it? Why?

    NOTE: I am perfectly open to giving some extra consideration to applicants from less socio-economically privileged homes, provided I am convinced that they can handle the work.

  50. leo cruz February 17, 2005 at 12:12 am | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Human nature being what it is, the observation made by Stanley Mosk was correct, blacks of the ilk of Guinier, Edley, the NAACP, Berry obviously would not want to give the preferences acquired by blacks in university admissions and other areas just like many whites who refused to give up their priveleges and preferences before 1964 and even after that . Power, prefererence and privelege is like a cocaine addiction, it is hard to give it up, that is why you won’t see a lot of whites denouncing alumni legacy preferences just like black parents as far as sending their kids to their alma mater of Morehouse, Spelman, or Howard. these black parents won’t denounce alumni legacy preferences for their kids at Spelman, Morehouse or Howard. It is a matter of greed and self – interest Cobra, you seem to have a shallow understanding of human nature. It is pure greed Cobra and selfishness. Of course race preferentialists like the Ku Klux Klan and these white parents at harvard and stanford along with Guinier and company call it by another name. They are one and the same. Remember Cobra, the previous e – mail that I posted here about the that foolish white , Irish Catholic girl named Sandra Day O’ Connor, when she met that group of Indian Supreme Court Justices from the subcontinenent and that George Washington Law School prof? The observation made by the Indian Supreme Court Justice was correct. He said that once preferences ( or affirmative action as it is called in this country ) comes to exist, it tends to perpetuate itself forever. The untouchables and other groups receiving preferences in INdia like the Ku Klux Klan, black race preferentialists of the ilk of Guinier and Berry, white alumni legacy preferentialists at Harvard and Stanford will not give up preference, power or privelege once they have tasted it. O’ Connor should have heeded the wise words of the Indian judge and put her put down over the continued use of preferences in this country.

    ” Getting into Berkeley is not the ONLY issue in regards to Affirmative Action. Look at the effect Prop 209 has on Asian American contractors in San Francisco.

    http://www.asianweek.com/021899/mainfeature.html

    I s uppose you will attack them as well, but.. ”

    Wrong Cobra,how will that help Asian Americans??. A less than qualified Asian contracting business winning a bidding contract thru a preference is not gonna help the Asian community from the way you think. Let me explain why. Suppose an Asian Contracting business wins a $300k publc contract, higher than the lowest bid of 270k dollars. Let us say that Asian American taxpayers in San Francisco paid only 10 % of it in taxes. However, if the contract is now worth 300k dollars. The amount of taxpayer money contributed by Asians to the contract is now worth $30k rather than $ 27k

    Do the simple arithmetic Cobra and tell me

    if that helps the Asian community at all .

    Not only that, how about if the contract show defects and higher maintainance costs int the future and has to be redone again ? That will mean even greater taxpayer costs to the Asian community. That is an analogy that you can use as far as race preferences are given to blacks in medical or law schools. Cobra, it is just hard to beat me.

  51. Leo Cruz February 17, 2005 at 12:19 am | | Reply

    Cobra,

    There is only 1 instance where the Asian contracting business should be given a preference. If that contracting busines has the same bid as the lowest bidder, has the same set of skills in building the project set by the contract and has a long history of being shut out of getting a piece of the project. What I am really advocating in economic affirmative action Cobra, the ” poorest company ” with the same bid as the lowest bidder who has the same set of construction skills as the most skilled bidder should get the contract.

  52. Cobra February 17, 2005 at 11:11 pm | | Reply

    Martin writes:

    “It went something like this;

    92+% = A for Asian students.

    90+% = A for White students.

    85+% = A for Black & Hispanic students.

    85+% = B for Asian students.

    82+% = B for White students.

    79+% = B for Black & Hispanic students.

    This would have applied to all students irrespective of socio-economic background. I believe an outcry from the Asian students (a lot of whom came from poor immigrant homes) and some of the working class white parents collapsed the idea before it came to full fruition.

    If this were under consideration in your town/city, would you be for or against it? Why?”

    This is a difficult question without seeing the the entire subject, details and the rationale for the proposal. There are mitigating factors unseen here. For example, many of the courses I remember taking in high school and college worked on a “curve” as far as testing was concerned.

    If you want a stone cold lock down answer from me, without the full program for me to review, I would say I wouldn’t neccessarily be enthralled with it. Now if this is one of those “hypothetical analogies”, it doesn’t work, because there are far greater sins to be discussed, such as social promotion and grade inflation.

    Leo writes:

    >>>Wrong Cobra,how will that help Asian Americans??. A less than qualified Asian contracting business winning a bidding contract thru a preference is not gonna help the Asian community from the way you think.”

    Do you assume “Asian” is code “less than qualified?” Do you feel as a Fillipino you’re “less than qualified” when you’re in competition with a white person? You go on to ask what happens if the Asian American contractor work “shows defects or high maintenance costs” as though white contractors are infallable. How do you come to these conclusions, Leo?

    >>>He said that once preferences ( or affirmative action as it is called in this country ) comes to exist, it tends to perpetuate itself forever. The untouchables and other groups receiving preferences in INdia like the Ku Klux Klan, black race preferentialists of the ilk of Guinier and Berry, white alumni legacy preferentialists at Harvard and Stanford will not give up preference, power or privelege once they have tasted it. O’ Connor should have heeded the wise words of the Indian judge and put her put down over the continued use of preferences in this country.”

    You REALLY aren’t trying to DEFEND the caste system of India here, are you? I’d ask you to clarify yourself, but this thread is already all over the map from the initial theme.

    –Cobra

  53. Cobra February 18, 2005 at 12:02 am | | Reply

    Chetly Zarko writes:

    >>>You have no qualms about taking people out of context.”

    Nope.

    >>>More importantly, why is that you believe that conservatives never have any ideas for social reform or solving social problems, or that organizations like Bradley are ill-motivated (they may or may not be wrong)?”

    I sincerely believe that many conservatives have ideas for social reform and social problems. As a liberal, I disagree with most of them. I believe liberalism is the champion motivator for social justice in America. I believe in trying to help the underdogs; the working poor and their families–those without favored ethnic status–those not in the ruling class. I’m not saying ALL conservatives are incapable of doing a few good things every now and then. For example, I found myself AGREEING with Dubya when he recently suggested that raising the ceiling on social security taxes will help the system. Don’t ask me when was the LAST time I agreed with him, however.

    As far as groups like Bradley are concerned, I believe their agenda is made transparent by the movements and individuals they support. Supporting anti-black authors like D’nesh D’souza and Charles Murray does nothing to foster trust in my mind. Now, of course, there are people out there who will try to de-emphasize their “black inferiority” rhetoric, but it rings hollow with me. I’ve heard enough, “We pulled you over because you were “weaving/dim tail-light/fit the description of..” excuses in my lifetime to not fall for it in these examples.

    >>>The argument that testing is by nature “racist” ignores the reality that the root causes are social and economic, and in fact, is a racist argument itself because it subsumes race has something to do with performance…”

    You do realize that Bradley-sponsored authors like D’souza and Murray promote PRECISELY THAT…that race has something to do with performance. It’s a form of “diet-eugenics” so to speak, where it’s NATURE instead of NURTURE that is the reason for the difference in test scores. Other conservative tinged weblogs and webpages preach about this incessantly. In fact, it’s the true irony of the whole Affirmative Action debate that people who believe in the intellectual inferiority of underrepresented minorities are giving preferentialists all the ammunition they need. Now one could argue that it’s a backhanded, insulting way to view underrepresented minorities, but as Dubya described the woman working with three jobs at his social security pep rally,…”that’s uniquely American,”

    and backhanded insults are pretty much par for the course anyway.

    >>>(which is John’s point about preferences fostering a misplaced belief in some that “whitey” is keeping them down).”

    A neutral observer would get that particular “misplaced belief” by simply reading an accurate American history textbook, or the latest EEOC findings from the state of Michigan.

    >>>I’m not so conservative either, that I believe there is no role for government (there are government programs that can address disparity, and there are government programs that can foster it and create dependency, and that is more of a question of design than goal) whatsoever, but my inclination is always for less govt when possible and my belief is not that government drives individual or social progress, but that individuals do.”

    The weight of law and the enforcement thereof is vital to any social progress.

    In many cases, the individual would have no recourse for justice save government and the legal process. Regulation and bureaucracy are often the only safeguards for the individual against corporate misconduct.

    –Cobra

  54. leo cruz February 18, 2005 at 1:19 am | | Reply

    Cobra says,

    “Do you assume “Asian” is code “less than qualified?” Do you feel as a Fillipino you’re “less than qualified” when you’re in competition with a white person? You go on to ask what happens if the Asian American contractor work “shows defects or high maintenance costs” as though white contractors are infallable. How do you come to these conclusions, Leo”

    Do I really care if whites assume if Pilipinos are less ” qualified ” , I never assumed that when I was in college. I did get good grades.In my last final exam in college, I remembered getting a score of 43 out of 50 questions. I remembered that exam well because of something funny and riotous that happened in that exam. There may be 2 or 3 whites who got a higher grade than I did in that exam, but I believe that a majority of whites who took that exam got a lower grade than I did. That was a long time ago however.

    I certainly did not feel myself inferior to whites as far as taking exams. And who told you that I believe that white contractors are infallible, I neither believe that Pilipino contractors are infallible also. Apparently you believe black contractors are infallible.

    No Cobra, not all Pilipinos who apply to Boalt Law are the children of storefront ministers.

    Many of the The majority of whom are the children of professionals : nurses, doctors, engineers, chemists etc. Just because on the average Pilipino applicants at Boalt law have lower average LSAT scores than their Chinese or Korean counterparts, that does not mean they ought to be given preferences for admissions at Boalt Law. Bill Kidder seems to support that point with his foolish views regarding admissions at Boalt law. He made a clumsy ploy to elicit the symphaty of Pilipinos in aligning themselves with black race preferentialists like you on that point. I certainly am not buying his crap. Regarding the case of India, you are indeed an ignoramus. Not all members of the ” backward classes or lower castes are poor” Are all members of the Brahmin class in INdia rich ? It is the same thing as the case of blacks over here. Not all blacks are poor. S. Ambedkar, the Indian Supreme Court Justice belonged to the untouchable class. Your ignorance does not serve you well cobra.

    Hey Chetly Zarko,

    I am waiting for you and Jenny Gratz to denounce all kinds of preferences at UM – Ann Arbor. You simply have no shame like many alumni legacy preferentialists.

  55. Cobra February 18, 2005 at 7:49 am | | Reply

    Leo writes:

    >>>Regarding the case of India, you are indeed an ignoramus. Not all members of the ” backward classes or lower castes are poor” Are all members of the Brahmin class in INdia rich ? It is the same thing as the case of blacks over here. Not all blacks are poor. S. Ambedkar, the Indian Supreme Court Justice belonged to the untouchable class. Your ignorance does not serve you well cobra.”

    So again, the question is…Are you defending the caste system in India?

    –Cobra

  56. leo cruz February 19, 2005 at 1:36 am | | Reply

    Cobra,

    You either do not understand what I wrote or you do not understand what you are talking about. The caste system in India is a system of preferences, as you probably know by now I had been railing against preferences in this blogsite for a long time.

  57. Chetly Zarko February 25, 2005 at 7:11 pm | | Reply

    Leo,

    I have denounced alumni preferences in many public forms, including the Michigan Bar Journal and Ann Arbor News. Ward Connerly is also on the record as having denounced alumni preferences. I would note that I also denounce preferences based on “VIP” status as well, which I find to be a more insidious practice, and which I’ve taken a lead in exposing publicly with raw, archival evidence.

    We considered the issue of whether and how to include alumni preferences into our amendment. Most constitutions, including Michigan’s, prohibit laws or proposals from addressing more than one “object” or subject matter. Since discrimination based upon physical characteristics already has a defined section of law, any attempt to include non-physical attributes, or attributes not normally found in the historical body of law currently defined as “civil rights law,” would have risked invalidating the whole thing. Additionally, prohibiting preferences on the basis of income would prohibit preferences favoring the poor, and option we didn’t want to take away (we believe that is within the domain of the university to decide).

    Chet

Say What?