I never cease to be amazed at how defenders of affirmative action cannot or will not describe it as it actually operates, i.e., as systematic racial preference.
A good example of what I mean is a recent article in the Daily Cal by two Berkeley undergraduates, Amy Sweeney and Yet Wa Li. Amy, poor thing, grew up somewhat privileged in Washington state and
didn
“This is not progress.” It is if you’re a cultural Marxist whose real goal is the deconstruction of the horribly successful, horribly capitalistic, horribly free American society.
Once again, why doesn’t someone ask the sophmoric students at Berkley how the Students at 96% black Florida A&M benefit from the non-diversity created by a government program to maintain black only universities. If whites need blacks around them to become good managers and citizens then why don’t blacks needs whites (and asians and Hispanics) around to become just as good of citizens.
Now, as sociology majors at Cal and interns at Berkeley
As I search this week for a lawyer to take my case of discrimination and wrongful termination from ohe of Austin’s largest employers, I wonder at what it means, this affirmative action? From what I can tell, this white girl thinks it means affirmative discrimination.
The Lessons of Diversity
As reinforced here by John Rosenberg at Discriminations, affirmative action in education is legally justifiable only for the purposes of “diversity.” The Supreme Court has already affirmed the illegitimacy of the “redress for past discrimination” arg…
I’ve always wondered what superdestroyer said: If “diversity” is such an overwhelmingly important asset (enough to mandate affirmative discrimination), then why aren’t HBCs being held to the same standard?
Sheesh, on a local cable access show, a [black] county councilman screams “racism” etc. about the Univ. of Delaware and local school districts “becoming segregated” again and not “being diverse enough;” however, in the very next sentence, he stated that Delaware State University (an HBC) “cannot be taken out of our hands,” and “has to be maintained as it is.”
“If “diversity” is such an overwhelmingly important asset (enough to mandate affirmative discrimination), then why aren’t HBCs being held to the same standard?”
No state action?
Actus,
The same Ford Motor Company that filed an Amicus brief on the University of Michigan cases claiming that discrimination is OK is it leads to diversity has hiring programs that those HBU’s. So what is there real policy of those supporting diversity: That managers and leaders need to be trained in a diverse setting or that managers trained in all black settings are just as capable as everyone else.
If diversity is more important that civil rights, the state should immediately close all of the HBU’s. If the states want HBU’s to continue, the politicans should just shut up about the “need” for diversity.
actus,
I don’t understand. State actors can be forbidden from discriminating, but they can’t be required to discriminate, so far as I know, except under very tightly-controlled criteria having to do with well-documented past discrimination. So HBCs and public universities are basically in the same boat when it comes to “diversity.” If they value it, they can seek it, even to the point of putting a discreet thumb on the admissions scale. Or, then again, they can skip it.
I do think the argument against HBCs is a little strained, because black students can get all the experience of the majority society they want any time. But at an HBC they won’t get it in the classroom, and the gist of the “diversity” argument for affirmative action is that having “others” in the classroom is essential. With every private non-HBC in the country short of the ones that admit anything with a pulse touting “diversity,” and educators insisting that “diversity” is necessary for effective education, is it not at least slightly odd that no one wants the HBCs to be more “diverse”?
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>If diversity is more important that civil rights, the state should immediately close all of the HBU’s. If the states want HBU’s to continue, the politicans should just shut up about the “need” for diversity.”
No data dumping..but a need for some clarification.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities ARE diverse. Students of all races and ethnicities are welcome to apply and matriculate, and as this article states, many whites are.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2000/US/05/18/black.colleges/
At some HBU’s white students are the MAJORITY.
And I don’t think you’ll get much help from the Bush White House getting rid of HBU’s, either.
http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/whhbcu/edlite-index.html?src=oc
Now without using the fall back argument I usually give regarding the need for Affirmative Action, I offer another tonight. I believe Affirmative Action is an investment in human capital that will allow a growing,less homogenous society to compete at ALL levels during the upcoming population demographic switch. Short and sweet…the people on the bridge can’t run the ship alone. The Steamship America needs all hands on deck to navigate through the turbulent seas of the 21 Century.
–Cobra
If the piece from the Daily Cal is any indication of the depth of analytical thought at Berkeley, the only responsible course of action at this point is to turn off the lights, lock the doors, and go home. Maybe the kids from the Oakland schools wouldn’t feel dependent upon AA to succeed if they actually spent their school days in class learning something useful instead of playing junior activist on the campus. Just a thought…
I believe Affirmative Action is an investment in human capital that will allow a growing,less homogenous society to compete at ALL levels during the upcoming population demographic switch. Short and sweet…the people on the bridge can’t run the ship alone. The Steamship America needs all hands on deck to navigate through the turbulent seas of the 21 Century.
I believe your extended metaphor is a fish out of water flopping around on a lonely beach until it slowly suffocates in the smoggy atmosphere.
Cobra,
Nothing that you said is ever new, it is the same old nonsense. Race preferences under the guise of affirmative action is not an invesment in human capital , it is a waste of human capital. No black person is prevented from taking the SAT, the LSAT, the MCAT etc. Cobra, do you realize that here in Calfornia that whites are a minority in 5 of the 7 campuses of the UC system? Oh yes, your senseless rhetoric about homogenity. Even if you whtites are reduced to 20 % of the freshman class at Berkeley, you’ld still be demanding race preferences for blacks. Steamship America does not need a navigator or crew hand like you and your ilk of race preferentialists.Steamship America is just slowed down by the paddle wheel of race preferences, what it needs is the hydrofoil or an air cushion of equal opportunity. In Malaysia,after 30 years of race preferences they decided to stop that kind of garbage. |The government admitted That it slowed down economic progress, it never helped those supposedly it intended to help.
What i meant in my previous post was that even if whites were reduced to % of the freshman class at Berkeley, he’d still be demanding race preferences for blacks.Did you see my previous posr Cobra, how Harvard medical Scho0l is so desperate to fill their qoutas for blacks? In fall 2003, they enrolled 26 blacks compared to 21 Chinese, japanese- Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Thais,Burmese etc. I excluded the South Asians (i.e. Indians from the subcontinent, Paks, Bangladeshis etc. ) Does anyone honestly believe that at least 1 of those blacks admitted and enrolled had higher MCAT scores than any of the Asians who enrolled at HMS ?
So Cobra, when the coming “demographic switch” occurs, I presume you will favor preferences for the white minority, and that the current regime will promptly give up all the power they have accumulated. The very problem with preferences is that they are an inappropriate use of and accumulation of power by and for special interests, and that they create an “identity struggle” within America. ELC’s first comment about how this is a Marxist attempt to deconstruct America hits it right on the head – having failed at the experiment of using class struggle as the means to revolution, the new movement seeks to use racial struggle as its driving force (and history is replete with successful examples, from Hitler to modern-day Sudan – I could never figure out why open Marxists (“By Any Means Necessary”) would support racial preference when the problem is more primarily related to class differences, but in the context of a “tool” to ignite the revolution, race is a better wedge).
As to HBCs, they represent an interesting dilemma. For the truly private universities and since blacks choose to attend them, those of us against preferences tolerate them as within the free associational rights of the participants. The irony is that these choices reduce the available pool of candidates for public institutions, and thereby artificially depress minority enrollment at the elite universities. It’d be interesting to quantify this – but “societal discrimination” gets blamed for all of the gap. I do believe though it is true that the role of the HBC is changing, and the days of exclusivity are gone. “Diversity”, ironically, is killing HBCs because its philosophy is inconsistent with them.
Cobra,
You can look up the diversity index of universities at Us NEWS
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/natudoc_campdiv_brief.php
Guess what? The historically black universities are at the bottom of the list for diversity.
Look at what the Board of Regents is sayig at Florida A&M says about divesity:
“It’s an historically black college, and it’s going to stay that way,” says Steve Uhlfelder, a white member of the Board of Governors, which oversees the state university system
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/20/State/Rattling_the_status_q.shtml
Also in the article is the quote:
For many years, FAMU offered scholarships to minority students, which at this school means whites, Asians and Hispanics. That stopped some years ago, as did active recruitment of nonblack students.
So once again: is diversity important for all Americans or it only important is it means taking away seats at elite universities from Whites and giving them to lower achieving blacks?
“If diversity is more important that civil rights, the state should immediately close all of the HBU’s.”
What if HBU’s add to diversity outside of school, say, at GM?
I’m confused when people are talking about things being “held to the same standard.” Who is applying these standards? The state? private actors?
“But at an HBC they won’t get it in the classroom, and the gist of the “diversity” argument for affirmative action is that having “others” in the classroom is essential.”
Ya. I’m not a fan of that argument. But it is one the courts have decided is a compelling state interest, so state schools use it.
“With every private non-HBC in the country short of the ones that admit anything with a pulse touting “diversity,” and educators insisting that “diversity” is necessary for effective education, is it not at least slightly odd that no one wants the HBCs to be more “diverse”?”
I think market forces have taken care of this situation no? Those who see a competitive advantage in AA, apply it.
Actus,
How can someone who graduates from a HBU and has spent four plus years hanging around the Omega or Delta house going to manage a diverse work placed filled with Hispanics, Asians, Europeans, and Indians (the asian subcontinent variety)? Since the argument goes that whites cannot possibly learn to manage blacks unless they go to school with them, they why is the reserve not true?
My guess is that most black Americans do not care at all about diversity and really don’t want to work in a diverse workplace but instead want a quasi-legal system that benefits them and their children while also harming whites.
“Since the argument goes that whites cannot possibly learn to manage blacks unless they go to school with them, they why is the reserve not true?”
I think the argument is that their education is bettered. Not that they can’t possibly learn to manage blacks. I don’t think this is a good argument for AA anyway, but it is the one the supreme court has approved.
If the argument is that HBU’s education is worse than others, then thats a problem for the people who go to HBU’s. Ain’t free markets grand?
Actus demonstrates his expediency when he argues: “I’m not a fan of that argument [diversity]. But it is one the courts have decided is a compelling state interest, so state schools use it.” Of course, HBCs fit into an argument that preferences are remedial inter-generational justice, because there is no moral inconsistency in allowing all-black colleges to exist while forcing other colleges to give preferences. The problem with inter-generational justice is that it is an even cruder “measure” than diversity (exactly whose parents were slave owners and whose parents fought and died for the North in the Civil War? or why punish the daughter of a Cambodian immigrant struggling to make ends meet economically to favor Colin Powell’s grandson?), and that it creates cycles of recrimination. Inter-generational justice has been the theory behind many wars and terrorism (France – Germany; the middle east conflicts).
” there is no moral inconsistency in allowing all-black colleges to exist while forcing other colleges to give preferences”
What are you talking about. What colleges are being “forced” ?
The irony of this debate that has spilled over into HBU’s, is that for the most part, the vast majority of American Colleges and Universities could be accurately nicknamed HWU’S (Historically White Colleges and Universities.)
Let’s take the University of Michigan for example. Although it was founded in 1817, it didn’t have it’s first African American students until:
>>>1868 – The first Black students, John Summerfield Davidson and Gabriel Franklin Hargo, enter the University of Michigan. The event receives little publicity and the fact that the students were African American fails to be recorded in U of M records.”
http://www.umich.edu/~blkceleb/history.html
Why, that’s over 50 years. By definition, that makes the U of M an “historically white college.”
I think some of the posters in here confuse the word “historically” with “exclusively,” or are purposely trying to conflate the two terms for effect. There are many good reasons why many white students are increasingly choosing HBC’s, not the least of which is COST, which can be as much as HALF of what HWC’s charge.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>So Cobra, when the coming “demographic switch” occurs, I presume you will favor preferences for the white minority, and that the current regime will promptly give up all the power they have accumulated.”
What makes you assume whites are going to give up power? What examples in American history can you provide that indicates this is to be expected? If anything, we can expect some “interesting” amendments to the Constitution as the year 2050 (Brown Midnight) approaches.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>As to HBCs, they represent an interesting DILEMMA. For the truly private universities and since blacks choose to attend them, those of us against preferences TOLERATE them as within the free associational rights of the participants.”
So Grambling, Tuskeegee, Howard and Spelman are “dilemmas” that anti-preference types like you “tolerate.”
I think that statement speaks volumes on it’s own, with no further commentary needed from me.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>How can someone who graduates from a HBU and has spent four plus years hanging around the Omega or Delta house going to manage a diverse work placed filled with Hispanics, Asians, Europeans, and Indians (the asian subcontinent variety)?”
As opposed to someone who graduates from an HWU and has spent four plus years hanging around Skull and Bone hazings?
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>My guess is that most black Americans do not care at all about diversity and really don’t want to work in a diverse workplace but instead want a quasi-legal system that benefits them and their children while also harming whites.”
That’s a “Stephen-level” statement, there. First, it’s human nature for someone to want a system that “benefits them.” It’s the distribution of these benefits that brings us to the debate at hand.
Leo writes:
>>>Does anyone honestly believe that at least 1 of those blacks admitted and enrolled had higher MCAT scores than any of the Asians who enrolled at HMS ?’
I don’t have access to the scores, Leo, so I won’t make SWEEPING, STEREOTYPICAL GENERALIZATIONS about race and standardized testing. I’m think my buddy Martin A. Knight would interested to debate you on his abillity as a black man to achieve academically. I know I certainly am.
–Cobra
Hey Cobra,
It is brown midnight over here in Califoria already, whites are a minority in the freshman class of the University of California system, that won’t stop you however from demanding preferences for blacks. cobra, in case you haven’t figured out yet, private HBCU’s like Spelman and Morehouse are a mirror image of the Ivies and LACs or Stanford. They practice the same kind of preferences of the alumni legacy variety. And reprehensible though it may be, we “tolerate ” the existence of these private HWCU ( historically white colleges and universities ) that practice the same kind of obnoxious alumni legacy preferences. As for the inability of blacks to supervise a workforce by going to all black FAMU, they have the same problem as Bushie right? they might have a hard time managing or getting along with non – white colleagues that the emotional and verbal hazings of Skull and Bones have not prepared them for eh? But Cobra people learn you know, in the end it is the capability of human beings to choose between right and wrong that really matters. Man did not rise from apes by making all the right choices all the while, they made plenty of mistakes along the way. When the japanese, germans , brits , koreans , chinese came this way to establish multinational companies they made mistakes too, but soon learned how to treat their local American workforce correctly, eh? Oh yes, the distribution of benefits is the heart of the debate isn’t it?, but your method of distribution is called theft, unrighteousness and deceit. Don’t worry Cobra , I got all the statistics about medical school. Let me just say that both Meharry and Howard Medical School have the lowest average MCAT of any freshman medical school entering class. BTW Cobra, if you and your race preferentialist ilk are the deckhands of steamship America,the steamship will have no keel and it will tip over due to lack of bouyancy and sink to the bottom of the ocean.
The Carnival of Education: Week 7 (on the road)
Welcome to the 7th Carnival of Education! I am thrilled to be guest hosting, and terrified at the thought of even trying to fill Education Wonks’ shoes. But the time has come, so let’s open the fair. Please help publicize this great event…
Leo writes:
>>> Don’t worry Cobra , I got all the statistics about medical school.”
You’re saying you have EVERY APPLICANT’S score, in order to prove your outlandish statement about black ineptitude in your earlier post?
–Cobra
Cobra,
Again, you grossly take me out of context, revealing your snakelike ethics for what they are.
There is a societal “dilemma” – a conflict of values – between “free association” and equality. I acknowledge it – and note that it is a “close call” – race preference supporters, like you, ignore it, want to gloss over it, or attack those of us intellectually honest enough to discuss it. The irony is that we both lean toward equality – it just a matter of degree and method. I believe in balancing both interests – you would seemingly throw away free association, except, of course, for members of protected groups, which are given a preference even here (blacks have the right and even moral encouragement to “self-segregate,” but when whites don’t).
Clearly, you recognize “societal discrimination,” and offer an argument that government has an obligation to “correct” it through race preferences and other affirmative actions. Government changing the pre-disposition and choices of individuals is an open infringement of “free association.”
I recognize both societal discrimination and governmental discrimination, and see it as the purpose of government to end governmental discrimination as a way of “leading by example” to a long-term end to the attitudes creating societal discrimination. Governmental discrimination, although well-intended, creates an “identity-society” based on rase, and perpetuates racism, segregation (including “self-segregation”), and political competition based upon race, in society.
Now, in other posts, I’ve argued for agressive government enforcement of Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination laws. I would face criticism from those on the right of me for violating “free association,” but I believe the Civil Rights Act has found the right balance between equality and association. It has, because it doesn’t penetrate into individual decisions, but only into those of corporations or individuals “providing public accomodations” (and hence enjoying the benefits of governmental recognition or enforcement of contracts).
Since HBCs involve primarily the self-segregating decisions of individuals, I “tolerate” (which is a good word — isn’t “diversity” really about teaching “tolerance” for other ideas) those decisions, even though I don’t think they are necessarily wise. Still, its not my place, or government’s, to judge the wisdom of individual choices, except where such choices intrude into the public sphere. Thereby, as a policymaker, I would “tolerate” a Howard University where 90% (randomly chosen) of students end up being black because of the choices students make (as opposed to the choices the university makes, which should be subject to strict scrutiny). In the case of Florida A-M, where the administrators (government or certainly public) have committed to making that choice for the students and excluding whites, I wouldn’t tolerate it as a policymaker.
Ah… the difference between government action and individual action. Hard for a communist to separate, isn’t it, Cobra?
This interesting “contradiction” or “dilemma” has arisen in the U-Michigan dormitory system, which doesn’t use race. The “self-segregation” statistics are now of “concern” to U-M administrators, with an interesting division between those who would further micro-manage, and those who think self-segregation is actually good. See today’s Michigan Daily at http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/23/42415db2582bb
Chatley,
thanks you for pointing out the article about housing at UMich.
The NAACP, CBC, etc have aruged that whites needs blacks around to become leaders, yet, those blacks admitted on a separate and unequal basis, resort to segregating themselves in the own doors, frats, classes, and majors. Where is the benefit to the non-black students and society, if all of the blacks are hanging around the Omega house at UMich just like they would be haning around the Omega house at Florida A&M.
Rational discussion with race-preference supporters just isn’t possible. Here’s one’s standard of “diverse” when applied to institutions he wants to defend:
“Historically Black Colleges and Universities ARE diverse. Students of all races and ethnicities are welcome to apply and matriculate, and as this article states, many whites are.”
In this context diversity is met simply with a non-exclusion policy. Yet in other circumstances he deems a non-exclusion policy not only insufficient but actively racist.
When faced with such blatant contradictions you must suspect his stated goals are not his true goals. What conversation is possible with someone not even honest enough to admit their goals?
You would look at
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/sports/rankings/gendereq.htm
It shows that that most of the HBU are not anywhere near compliance with Title IX civil rights regulations for gender equity. They may claim to be diverse and fair but they cannot even get compliance with even gender regulations let alone “diversity” guidelines.
MJ writes:
>>>In this context diversity is met simply with a non-exclusion policy. Yet in other circumstances he deems a non-exclusion policy not only insufficient but actively racist.
“When faced with such blatant contradictions you must suspect his stated goals are not his true goals. What conversation is possible with someone not even honest enough to admit their goals?”
I in no way contradicted myself in that statement. I stated TWO FACTS. FACT #1-
Historically Black Universities and Colleges ARE diverse. They are not EXCLUSIVELY black. There are non-black students attending. That is a fact that is not contradicted by any poster on the board, nor does this statement of fact assert any of my own personal beliefs or agendas any more than my claiming the “sky is blue” is secret code for air pollution regulation.
FACT #2–Students of all races and ethnicities are welcome to apply and matriculate, and as this article states, many whites are.”
This is another fact. Had I begun to discuss admission requirements, historical discrimination, entitlement and other issues, then you’d have a point about potential biases I hold.
Right now, you have nothing but a futile shoestring tackle attempt at my just argument as it gallops down the sidelines.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>There is a societal “dilemma” – a conflict of values – between “free association” and equality. I acknowledge it – and note that it is a “close call” – race preference supporters, like you, ignore it, want to gloss over it, or attack those of us intellectually honest enough to discuss it.”
180 degrees later, Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>Still, its not my place, or government’s, to judge the wisdom of individual choices, except where such choices intrude into the public sphere. ”
Spinning the wheel once more, Chetly Zarko THEN writes:
>>>The “self-segregation” statistics are now of “concern” to U-M administrators, with an interesting division between those who would further micro-manage, and those who think self-segregation is actually good. See today’s Michigan Daily at http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/23/42415db2582bb
Since it isn’t “your place” to judge the wisdom of individual choices, why would you even bring up “self-segregation?” My position is that, according to the statistics provided in
your linked article, the students at the U of Michigan are INTEGRATED
a much more PROFOUND RATE than the residents of Michigan, one of the most segregated states in the Union.
Why, even the home of Ft. MCRI–
Southgate, MI can’t match up to HONORS HOUSING, much less Central Campus.
>>>Races in Southgate:
White Non-Hispanic (90.9%)
Hispanic (4.0%)
Black (2.1%)
Two or more races (1.2%)
American Indian (0.9%)
Other race (0.8%)
Asian Indian (0.7%)
>>>http://www.city-data.com/city/Southgate-Michigan.html
For those not familiar with Southgate, it is a 6.9 square mile sized suburb (pop. 30,399) 14.2 miles south of 83% black Detroit.
I suppose there were some “individual choices” made amongst these citizens, but…yeah, I know. It’s “not your place to judge their wisdom.”
–Cobra
No one has ever claimed HCB’s are exclusively black. But since Cobra deems this fact to exonerate HCB’s, why doesn’t it exonerate every other University in the country?
Does he think race preferences should only apply at exclusively white universities? I seem to remember him defending preferences at UM. Does he think there are no black students at UM? Does he think there is a University somewhere in America which won’t let blacks attend? Do you suppose he even understands the implications of his “facts”?
The HBC policies are fine with me. I think all universities should have them.
His stated criteria exonerate every university in the country, or none. I wonder which way it will be tomorrow.
Cobra,
Florida A&M is much less diverse than Michigan (or virtually any other university). The percentages of Hispanic student at Flordia A&M is much less than the percentage of the State of Florida.
Look at Michigan
Student Body
Enrollment: 24,677
Female: 51%
Out of State: 31%
International: 5%
African American: 8%
Asian: 12%
Caucasian: 64%
Hispanic: 5%
Native American: 1%
http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/studentbody.asp?listing=1023092<ID=1&intbucketid=
Versus Florida A&M:
Female: 57%
Out of State: 20%
International: 1%
African American: 98%
Asian: 1%
Caucasian: 4%
Hispanic: 1%
Native American: 0%
http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/studentbody.asp?listing=1023321<ID=1&intbucketid=
Now since the University of Michigan allows exactly the same people as Florida A&M to apply for application, the argument that since whites can apply to Florida A&M it is “diverse” is as laughable as it is racist. Florida A&M doesn’t even represent the make up of the population of the State of Florida.
Just image, A student at Floirda A&M can go all day without seeing an Asian-American face, but a student at Michigan probably cannot go one class without seeing an Asian American face.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>Versus Florida A&M:
Female: 57%
Out of State: 20%
International: 1%
African American: 98%
Asian: 1%
Caucasian: 4%
Hispanic: 1%
Native American: 0%”
Now, maybe I’m oh..a victim of “preferential math”, or something…but I think those numbers have to be a little off. It would add up to be over 100%.
That must be one helluva school, that Florida A & M–
>>>Now since the University of Michigan allows exactly the same people as Florida A&M to apply for application, the argument that since whites can apply to Florida A&M it is “diverse” is as laughable as it is racist. Florida A&M doesn’t even REPRESENT the make up of the population of the State of Florida.”
Now there you go with the “proportionate representation” argument. I thought you anti-affirmative action types were DEAD SET AGAINST “proportionate representation?” If you’re saying that student admissions should be based upon that guideline…
MJ writes:
>>>No one has ever claimed HCB’s are exclusively black. But since Cobra deems this fact to exonerate HCB’s, why doesn’t it exonerate every other University in the country?”
I draw from quotes like these…
>>>I’ve always wondered what superdestroyer said: If “diversity” is such an overwhelmingly important asset (enough to mandate affirmative discrimination), then why aren’t HBCs being held to the same standard?
-Hube
>>>That managers and leaders need to be trained in a diverse setting or that managers trained in ALL BLACK settings are just as capable as everyone else…..
If diversity is more important that civil rights, the state should immediately close all of the HBU’s. If the states want HBU’s to continue, the politicans should just shut up about the “need” for diversity.
Posted by: superdestroyer on March 21, 2005 08:28 PM”
As you can see MJ, the clear implication was that HBC’s were either “non-diverse”, or “all black”. I provided the facts to repudiate that statement.
–Cobra
Hey Cobra,
HBCU’s whether public or private have different attitudes with the way they practiced it. In the case of private schools like morehouse and spelman or howard and hampton, the results are really a mixed bag. For some time Howard and hampton have enrolled a considerable number of non – blacks, on the other hand Spelman and Morehouse except for the medical school of Morehouse have enrolled none. Why is that? Maybe it has more to to with money rather than pure ideology. Howard and Hampton needs more money than Spelman or Morehouse does to operate, hence it is more willing to take in the money of non -whites . That is most specially true with the professional schools of Howard and meharry. The students who attend Morehouse and Spelman belong mostly to the economic elite of black society. In terms of economics, Morehouse and Spelman is a mirror image in terms of economic demographics equivalent to the HWUs ( historically white universities ) like harvard or amherst. Hence there is less pressure on Morehouse and Spelman to enroll non – whites. In fact, the average Spelman or Morehouse freshman comes from a household whose income is on the average a bit higher than that of a berkeley or UCLA freshman. there has been a recent drive among several public HBCU’s to increase the number of non-whites in their ranks. Of course , this has also to do with money I believe. Faced with lesser state monetary aid in the form of legislative threats and lower enrollment, they are trying to enroll more non -blacks in its freshman classes. since the mid 1960’s, public have not been forbidden officially to apply to public HWU’s. Now you can claim that non -whites are not forbidden to apply to HBCU’s , maybe not but the reality might be a little bit different.
Cobra,
How does the data you dump relating to Southgate’s racial breakdown relate to or clash with any of the arguments I presented? Why is it relevant to this discussion?
I notice in my response that I didn’t comment on my views of self-segregation, I merely pointed out an interesting article about an argument between University officials about that issue. What’s you’re beef with what I said, or were you just using the phrases “180 degrees” and “spinning the wheel” for the pure literary joy that they brought you?
Race preference supporters should draw less from poster comments and more from reality. Perhaps then they would not be in the ridiculous position of claiming non-exclusivity satisfies our diversity mania while at the same time claiming race preferences are needed to improve diversity even in non-exclusive circumstances.
On the bright side, it sure makes it easy to decide which side you’re on when you don’t let facts or principles get in the way. Just make up whatever ad-hoc reasoning supports the position of the minute and pretend it somehow doesn’t contradict everything else you’re ever said.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>I recognize both societal discrimination and governmental discrimination, and see it as the purpose of government to end governmental discrimination as a way of “leading by example” to a long-term end to the attitudes creating societal discrimination. Governmental discrimination, although well-intended, creates an “identity-society” based on rase, and perpetuates racism, segregation (including “self-segregation”), and political competition based upon race, in society.”
Chetly Zarko THEN writes:
>>>I notice in my response that I didn’t comment on my views of self-segregation, I merely pointed out an interesting article about an argument between University officials about that issue. What’s you’re beef with what I said, or were you just using the phrases “180 degrees” and “spinning the wheel” for the pure literary joy that they brought you?”
Now, am I to understand that in your FIRST paragraph, you are AGAINST “government discrimination” because it creates an “identity society” and perpetuates racism (understood by most blog readers as a bad thing) segregation (including self-segregation), and political competition based upon race, in society. Those are direct, in CONTEXT quotes. You sandwich the term “self-segregation” amidst your list of negatives that occur as a result of what you consider government discrimination. This invalidates your subsequent paragraph about “I didn’t comment on my views of self-segregation..” Your commentary on self-segregation was crystal clear by associating it with other principles generally accepted as bad in the same sentence.
MJ writes:
>>>Race preference supporters should draw less from poster comments and more from reality.”
How else would I converse with you save posting comments on this blog? The terms “non-diverse”, and “all black” imply an homogenous state that does NOT exist in reality.
–Cobra
cobra,
You keep repeating the argument that a school that is 98% black is diverse because whites can apply there even though they are unwelcomed there. Yet, you support the violation of individual civil rights is a school does not have enough blacks at it even though those schools have much more diversity than any HBU.
Just image that student at Florida A&M, Alcorn, Grambling, Texas Southern, etc. Not only does hear nothing but the convetional wisdom of the black community, he probably has exposure to much less divesity of opinion, religion, or culture than virtually any other college student in the US.
I have provided you two references that demonstrate that Florida A&M is among the least diverse universities in the US. I await you providing a reference on how Florida A&M provides a diverse education.
So again race preference supporters would have us believe that a non-exclusive admissions policy exempts an institution from requiring race preferences, except when it doesn’t.
It’s revealing when they omit answers to direct questions. For example, do race preference supports believe there are no black students at UM? (Or would not be without RP’s?) Why doesn’t the presence of these students nullify the need for RP’s as RP supporters believe the presence of a small percentage of non-blacks do at HBC’s? There is no university in this country which doesn’t let blacks enroll. Even Bob Jones must, or they wouldn’t have had their famed ban on interracial dating.
How is it that the same sensible policies followed by HBC’s are somehow racist when implemented by other institutions in the exact same circumstances? Is it possible that our race preference supporters base their evaluations of policy on the race profile of the institution? Wouldn’t this be, well, racist?
Personally I find it quite satisfying when such people slip up and reveal their true beliefs. Most of them know better than to engage in public debate, that’s probably why they’re so bad at it.
MJ writes:
>>>How is it that the same sensible policies followed by HBC’s are somehow racist when implemented by other institutions in the exact same circumstances? Is it possible that our race preference supporters base their evaluations of policy on the race profile of the institution? Wouldn’t this be, well, racist?”
I didn’t recall discussing the admissions policies of HBC’s other than the fact that they don’t “ban” non-blacks. I clearly indicated in my posts that there are HBC’s that have WHITE MAJORITY STUDENT BODIES. Is there an HWC that can boast of the opposite? That you’re oblivious to this point isn’t my concern. That you don’t acknowlege the progress made through outreach programs at many state run HWC’s is far more revealing of YOUR true agenda than mine.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>> Yet, you support the violation of individual civil rights is a school does not have enough blacks at it even though those schools have much more diversity than any HBU.”
Now, let me get this straight. Are you claiming that admission to the college of your choice is a “guaranteed civil right?” I know many anti-affirmative action types may believe in ENTITLEMENT to some degree, but if you’re going a bit overboard here, don’t you think?
–Cobra
Cobra,
I love how liberal activist all play from the same nitpickers handbook instead of discussing the issues. The State of Michigan violated the civil rights of Ms. Gratz and others when the state applied a separate and unequal admission standard based upon Ms. Gratz’s race.
In 2004, 50 years after Brown Vs Board of Education, the black civil rights establishment stood in front of the Supreme Court and claimed that “diversity” was so important and such a compelling issues, that all governments should be allowed to discriminate (against whites and Asians) in order to increase diversity.
What every American is ENTITLED to is to be treated the same by the government without regard to their race. Yet, you and others keep claiming that the diversity is SO IMPORTANT that the government should be actively discrimiating against whites and asians.
Then, when push comes to shove, those same black civil rights leaders demonstate that they don’t really care about diversity because they actively support state run universities and private universities that accept federal aid that all virtually all black and intend on staying all black. And how do the racist that dominate the black civil rights organization get around such rank hypocricy? By claiming that since whites could apply to an HBU if they wanted to (even though they would be unwelcomed and a second class student) that that is diverse enough while complaining that if blacks are not represented at majority white universites in porportion to the percentaged of the population, then such universities are not “diverse” enough.
So, in the end, what is more important: Diversity or exclusive black set asides because the reasons that in over 40 states the majority of whites voted for Republicans is that they believe that you and others like you just want to punish them for being whites and do not really want a diverse society.
Do race preference supporters then believe that race preferences are needed at HBC which are NOT now majority non-black? I can only presume not since no indication of such a policy has been mentioned. How exactly do HBC’s which have small minorities of non-blacks receive this immunization effect from the actions of other HBC institutions?
Now, in this case our RP supporter states the issue is “majority” non-black. But since blacks are in fact a minority of the population I think we must generalize his standard as “substantially near race proportionality”.
So our RPS’s new standard for race preferences is that they must apply to all HWC until a single HWC nears racial proportionality. Since this is obviously currently true of many institutions, including many without RP’s, I wonder what new post-hoc rationaliztion our RPS will dream up?
You’d think by now he would start considering the implications of his “standards” before proposing them.
MJ writes:
>>>Now, in this case our RP supporter states the issue is “majority” non-black. But since blacks are in fact a minority of the population I think we must generalize his standard as “substantially near race proportionality”.”
Actually, I questioned Superdestroyer about his support of proportionate representation here:
>>>>>>Now since the University of Michigan allows exactly the same people as Florida A&M to apply for application, the argument that since whites can apply to Florida A&M it is “diverse” is as laughable as it is racist. Florida A&M doesn’t even REPRESENT the make up of the population of the State of Florida.”
Now you’re transplanting his statement onto me, the racial preference loving guy that I am. Well, no surprise, I have defended the use of proportionate representation in some cases on this blog. It is not the bottom line in my beliefs. Cobra Argument #1 is. I find it comforting that you finally have accepted the term ‘HWC” and realize how integral this is to the debate at hand.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>I love how liberal activist all play from the same nitpickers handbook instead of discussing the issues. The State of Michigan violated the civil rights of Ms. Gratz and others when the state applied a separate and unequal admission standard based upon Ms. Gratz’s race.”
I’m not going to take the bait and go off subject to debunk yet another case of white privilege mythology. I think Tim Wise’s(www.timwise.org)take on it will suffice.
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/22/424003f22b885
>>>So, in the end, what is more important: Diversity or exclusive black set asides because the reasons that in over 40 states the majority of whites voted for Republicans is that they believe that you and others like you just want to punish them for being whites and do not really want a diverse society.”
So here you are, finally admitting that the Southern Strategy is still in effect, and that Cobra Argument #1 not only applies in regards to the need for Affirmative Action, but at the polls as well.
Superdestroyer, you’re almost as helpful to my arguments as Stephen is.
Keep it coming, brother!
–Cobra
So, as with all evidence interpreted by RPS’s racial proportionality means one thing when exhibited by HBI’s and another when exhibited by HWI’s.
At least RPS’s are consistently inconsistent.
But again he sidesteps the issue that blacks attend HWI’s and by his own criteria this negates the need for RP’s. Does he think we’re going to forget that his own criteria contradict his conclusions? Perhaps the sidestepping strategy works with ignorant college students, especially when stoned. But I suspect they were just too polite to point out his failure. Apparently he mistook this for evidence of a strong argument.