Another Bake Sale, And Counter “Sale”

The Young Conservatives of Texas put on another affirmative action bake sale, at Tarrant County College Northeast, charging whites and Asians more for cookies than blacks and Hispanics to dramatize the inequities of racial preferences.

This time the young Democrats had a counter “sale,” which some might think revealingly indicative of other Democratic policies.

HURST — Local college conservatives thought they had a great recipe to gain attention about affirmative action — cookies sold at prices based on race.

When the campus Democrats heard those plans, they came up with what they thought was a sweeter offer to challenge the conservatives — homebaked cookies at no price at all.

The Democrats also handed out bumper stickers and pins, and “[a] photo of Martin Luther King Jr. was on display while a speaker played the civil rights leader’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech.”

I wonder if they had deleted the part where King famously stated that he wanted his children to be judged by the content of their characther, not the color of their skin.

Say What? (72)

  1. actus March 10, 2005 at 1:03 pm | | Reply

    “I wonder if they had deleted the part where King famously stated that he wanted his children to be judged by the content of their characther, not the color of their skin.”

    An even better question is whether they included this quote from his “Why We Can’t Wait”:

  2. Nels Nelson March 10, 2005 at 1:38 pm | | Reply

    Strange that no mention is made of the stampede that surely ensued once word spread that free cookies were available. On second thought, I’m imagining an untouched plate of broken, lopsided, burnt, fat-free, sugar-free, salt-free, gluten-free cookies. Mmm…socialism…

    TCC audio engineering student Andrea Freyberg also called such bake sales offensive and divisive.

    “What is that saying about our country? That Hispanics should be treated as if they make less money? That doesn’t seem right,” said Freyberg.

    Exactly. Why does the article seem to present her as a supporter of affirmative action?

  3. John Rosenberg March 10, 2005 at 2:14 pm | | Reply

    actus – The actual, historical Martin Luther King said one or two things toward the end of his life in support of special treatment for “The Negro.” Those statements are as relevant to what MLK stands for, to why there is a national holiday to honor him, as the fact that the actual, historical Lincoln thought blacks were inferior, could not survive among whites, and should be shipped back to Africa has to do with what Lincoln stands for and why he is honored today.

    Nels – You quote:

    TCC audio engineering student Andrea Freyberg also called such bake sales offensive and divisive.

    “What is that saying about our country? That Hispanics should be treated as if they make less money? That doesn’t seem right,” said Freyberg.

    … and ask, “Exactly. Why does the article seem to present her as a supporter of affirmative action?”

    Probably because the reporter didn’t have a clue, but there may have been accidental justice in this cluelessness: Ms. Freyberh also doesn’t have a clue about how affirmative works in practice, and she thus may be an entirely appropriate representative of its opponents.

  4. Dave Huber March 10, 2005 at 2:20 pm | | Reply

    I see, actus. So King was … self-contradictory?

    I believe most Americans do not have a problem w/AA if they do not involve set figures, mandatory #s, and the like. Certainly, at around the time of King when unions and such explicitly did not permit blacks to join, there had to be remedies, if not strict numerical ones.

  5. actus March 10, 2005 at 2:21 pm | | Reply

    “The actual, historical Martin Luther King said one or two things toward the end of his life in support of special treatment for “The Negro.””

    I wonder how much more he would have said.

    “Those statements are as relevant to what MLK stands for, to why there is a national holiday to honor him, as the fact that the actual, historical Lincoln thought blacks were inferior, could not survive among whites, and should be shipped back to Africa has to do with what Lincoln stands for and why he is honored today.”

    Oh. so the question is “what we want him to be today” not “what he actually was.” ok!

  6. Dave Huber March 10, 2005 at 2:24 pm | | Reply

    Oh. so the question is “what we want him to be today” not “what he actually was.” ok!

    Better flush that Lincoln holiday down the toilet, then! And cover up that monument at the end of the Mall, too!

  7. actus March 10, 2005 at 2:28 pm | | Reply

    “I see, actus. So King was … self-contradictory?”

    I think king wasn’t opposed to using race consciousness in wiping out the harms of racism and reaching a color blind society.

    “Better flush that Lincoln holiday down the toilet, then! And cover up that monument at the end of the Mall, too!”

    Hey it would make lindsey graham happy! And aren’t we lefties told to get in touch with those red state values?

  8. Martin Knight March 10, 2005 at 2:44 pm | | Reply
      Hey it would make lindsey graham happy!

    Really? Where d’you get that idea?

      And aren’t we lefties told to get in touch with those red state values?

    You got it backwards. Not liking Lincoln (R-Illinois) is a Blue State value. After all, he did (GASP!!!) believe in God.

  9. actus March 10, 2005 at 2:47 pm | | Reply

    “Really? Where d’you get that idea?”” Not liking Lincoln (R-Illinois) is a Blue State value. ”

    For more on graham, check out the URL in my name. Can you think of a reason why a southerner might not like the guy who ran the “war of northern aggression”?

  10. John Rosenberg March 10, 2005 at 3:12 pm | | Reply

    actus:

    Oh. so the question is “what we want him to be today” not “what he actually was.”

    No, the question is: for what principle does he stand, for what stand is he honored?

    I suggest that you read, or re-read, this post where I discuss this exact issue at some length.

  11. actus March 10, 2005 at 3:56 pm | | Reply

    “No, the question is: for what principle does he stand, for what stand is he honored?”

    I think its pretty simple that he stands for the goal of a society where we don’t judge people by their race, and that we will use race conscious means to undo the harms of racism.

    But I supose some people will selectively quote King and piggyback on their vision of his legacy.

    Too bad he was shot so soon. Otherwise Kings legacy would have dangerous levels of unionism.

  12. notherbob2 March 10, 2005 at 4:28 pm | | Reply
  13. actus March 10, 2005 at 4:36 pm | | Reply

    ” Actus, the whole point is that the

  14. El Blogero March 10, 2005 at 4:57 pm | | Reply

    There may be entirely good reasons for AA today, such as to repair actual identified harms to individuals (as opposed to entire groups). King’s statement seems to be a recognition that blacks as a group at that time were substantially disadvantaged and unable to compete with whites (at the very least, this was almost universally true in the South).

    Nonetheless, supporters of group AA, however well-intentioned they may be, have to acknowledge that the underpinning of their position is that blacks and latinos are unable to compete academically with whites and asians today. Set aside for now the debate on why; this is the essential underpinning (it is in fact the premise of Dr. King’s statement quoted above). It is not a remedy to address slavery because if it is, the inclusion of latinos is inexplicable. If it is a remedy to address past discrimination, then the exclusion of other minority groups that suffered past discrimination in the U.S., including asians and jews, is equally inexeplicable. Once this is acknowledged, the debate on why begins, but it still starts off with a rather odious premise.

    Those who disagree with the concept of group AA, including this commenter, reject this premise today and instead believe that to the extent that the “why” debate points to factors such as poverty or lack of access, etc., then AA programs could be targetted to individuals for whome these factors apply without the reference to race. This would likely be acceptable to many persons opposed to AA, but likely not to those invested in the notion of AA as a group right.

  15. John Rosenberg March 10, 2005 at 5:30 pm | | Reply

    actus:

    I think its pretty simple that he stands for the goal of a society where we don’t judge people by their race, and that we will use race conscious means to undo the harms of racism.

    Always reminds me of destroying the village in order to save it. Hard to see how we would ever achieve “the goal of a society where we don’t judge people by their race” by constantly judging people by their race.

    Another thing that always strikes me about this defense is the demonstrated necessity of resorting to euphemisms: race conscious means, being sensitive to race, taking race into account, and, for that matter, affirmative action. The good news here is that even defenders of racial preferences are uncomfortable acknowledging that all such terms are an attempt to disguise the fact that what is being defended is racial discrimination.

    El Blogero: Welcome, and thanks for your comment. I’ve been trying for several years now, and I still haven’t said it better ….

  16. actus March 10, 2005 at 5:38 pm | | Reply

    “Hard to see how we would ever achieve “the goal of a society where we don’t judge people by their race” by constantly judging people by their race.”

    By not ‘constantly doing it.’ by dwindingly do it.

    I wouldn’t call ‘race concious means’ a euphemism though. It’s pretty clear.

  17. John Rosenberg March 10, 2005 at 5:49 pm | | Reply

    actus:

    I wouldn’t call ‘race concious means’ a euphemism though. It’s pretty clear.

    Is it? First, being “conscious” of race means nothing unless you do something with what you’re conscious of. There is no affirmative in being “conscious” of race because there is no action of any kind. Taking race into account is a bit less euphemistic, because it comes pretty close to admitting that one is not just “conscious” of race but that race actually influences decisions. How does it do that? By giving some people and advantage in whatever is being considered because of their race or, in other words, handing a benefit to some and a burden to others based on race. In short, racial discrimination. In short, “being conscious of race” is about as euphemistic as it gets.

  18. Miguelito March 10, 2005 at 6:52 pm | | Reply

    When the campus Democrats heard those plans, they came up with what they thought was a sweeter offer to challenge the conservatives — homebaked cookies at no price at all.

    And to make the metaphor complete… did they forcibly grab every passer-by and take some of their money in order to pay for all those “free” cookies?

    Of course, they also had to make sure to base the amount of money they took from each person based on what they had too.. more cash, take more money.

  19. Cobra March 10, 2005 at 7:23 pm | | Reply

    El Blogero writes:

    >>>Nonetheless, supporters of group AA, however well-intentioned they may be, have to acknowledge that the underpinning of their position is that blacks and latinos are unable to compete academically with whites and asians today. Set aside for now the debate on why; this is the essential underpinning (it is in fact the premise of Dr. King’s statement quoted above). It is not a remedy to address slavery because if it is, the inclusion of latinos is inexplicable. If it is a remedy to address PAST discrimination, then the exclusion of other minority groups that suffered PAST discrimination in the U.S., including asians and jews, is equally inexeplicable. Once this is acknowledged, the debate on why begins, but it still starts off with a rather odious premise.”

    First, welcome to “Discriminations.”

    Second, you have framed a debate that totally dismisses discrimination against underrepresented minorities that STILL EXISTS TODAY. Maybe it is of no consequence to many who post here, but it certainly is to conscious members of the underrepresented minorities, and those who take time to actually review the TITANIC volumes of data that supports my statement.

    I will not “clog the blog” with this data right now, because as John has already acknowledged their veracity.

    –Cobra

  20. John Rosenberg March 10, 2005 at 8:08 pm | | Reply

    you have framed a debate that totally dismisses discrimination against underrepresented minorities that STILL EXISTS TODAY

    Yes, discrimination exists. No, discrimination is not its remedy.

  21. El Blogero March 10, 2005 at 8:29 pm | | Reply

    My comments above do not discount discrimination today. If, in fact, a proponent of group AA would like to use the argument that discrimination today provides the justification for group AA (the “why”), then such proponent is free to make that case. That was not the point I addressed in my post.

    My post addressed the underpinning of the argument, namely that blacks and latinos are unable to compete academically with whites and Asians today. Most AA advocacy, including the response post above, skips over this point and goes directly to the reasons why group AA is justified today. Anyone is free to make that point, but presumably that justification would be moot in the absence of the underpinning premise. I do not believe that advocates of group AA would argue that blacks and white as a group CAN compete academically with whites and Asians today, but they should still be given the benefit of group AA to compensate for discrimination that exists today. In fact, this is precisely what the argument would be for group AA for Asians, but I suspect that not many could make that case with a straight face.

    Accordingly, the “why” of present discrimination is still based on the odious premise that blacks and latinos cannot compete in the absence of group AA. Then, we can go to “why” they cannot compete (and some, obviously, would argue that it is because of discrimination that blacks and latinos suffer today, and, presumably, they would provide an explanation of why discrimination against Asians or Jews today either does not exist or does not affect such groups’ ability to compete).

    The botton line is that the premise is an odious one, so much so that even advocates of group AA try to avoid acknowledging this premise (or treat it as an unspoken given) and then go directly to the justification for the group AA remedy.

  22. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 10, 2005 at 10:39 pm | | Reply

    El Blogero, many thanks for saying what I’ve tried to say often better than I have.

    Cobra,

    Second, you have framed a debate that totally dismisses discrimination against underrepresented minorities that STILL EXISTS TODAY. Maybe it is of no consequence to many who post here, but it certainly is to conscious members of the underrepresented minorities, and those who take time to actually review the TITANIC volumes of data that supports my statement.

    Can we just figure this out now, please? Which are “underrepresented minorities”? Are we to assume that if in any given profession a particular nonwhite ethnic group is present in less than its proportion of the population, it’s for that purpose an “underrepresnted minority”? Or is “underrepresented minority” just a way of saying “all ‘people of color’ except for Asians”? I understand the first definition; I’m seriously put off by the second.

    And put off, too, by the idea that only the “underrepresented” suffer racial discrimination. You know that isn’t true. You might reflect, for one thing, on the situation of Arab-American immigrants, who aren’t “underrepresented” at top universities, but have lately gotten some grief.

  23. actus March 10, 2005 at 11:44 pm | | Reply

    ” First, being “conscious” of race means nothing unless you do something with what you’re conscious of. ”

    Thats the ‘means’ part.

    I’d say its not a euphamism because its more descriptive than discrimination. at least for me, race conscious means that we take into account what past racism has wrought today. Discrimination doesn’t tell us whether we ought to do that or not.

  24. John Rosenberg March 10, 2005 at 11:55 pm | | Reply

    race conscious means that we take into account what past racism has wrought today. Discrimination doesn’t tell us whether we ought to do that or not.

    Fine, but what do you do after you “take it into account”? You discriminate now to atone/compensate/diversify/whatever.

    No, “Discrimination doesn’t tell us” anything. But recognizing that something is discrimination tells us not to do it.

  25. Anonymous March 11, 2005 at 12:51 am | | Reply

    ‘Fine, but what do you do after you “take it into account”? ‘

    That would be the “means” part of race conscious means. You use means which address and correct the problems wrought by past discrimination.

  26. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 11, 2005 at 1:18 am | | Reply

    anon (12:51),

    That would be the “means” part of race conscious means. You use means which address and correct the problems wrought by past discrimination.

    Just out of curiosity, would you use “race conscious means” to remedy the hurts caused by the abominable treatment of, say, 19th-c. Chinese immigrants to California? And if you say (correctly) that most Chinese-Americans now in CA are fairly recent arrivals or their children, it still seems strange that Mexican immigrants of the same decades should get a leg up and the Chinese not.

  27. actus March 11, 2005 at 2:08 am | | Reply

    (anon was me)

    “Just out of curiosity, would you use “race conscious means” to remedy the hurts caused by the abominable treatment of, say, 19th-c. Chinese immigrants to California?”

    I think the problem here would be in detecting those hurts in today’s chinese population. Race conscious means wouldn’t appear to be well tailored to that problem in the way that post jim crow race conscious means were.

  28. Cobra March 11, 2005 at 8:06 am | | Reply

    El Blogero writes:

    >>>Accordingly, the “why” of present discrimination is still based on the odious premise that blacks and latinos cannot compete in the absence of group AA. Then, we can go to “why” they cannot compete (and some, obviously, would argue that it is because of discrimination that blacks and latinos suffer today, and, presumably, they would provide an explanation of why discrimination against Asians or Jews today either does not exist or does not affect such groups’ ability to compete).”

    You’re making a personal opinion, being “blacks and latinos can’t compete with whites academically”, and extrapolating it into to rationale for not needing Affirmative Action. Number one, you can’t throw out that inflamatory a statement WITHOUT providing your opinion of “why.” Is it NATURE, as many conservative white think tanks and pundits believe, or NURTURE as I, and many of those who hold my opinion do. If you believe it’s NATURE, then I can easily categorize you, and this whole discussion is moot. If you believe it to be NURTURE, then I’d love to hear your strategies besides Affirmative Action to address what you feel is a problem with competition. For an analogy, in the NFL, the competition committee dictates that the worst performing team of any given season will get the advantage of picking FIRST in the annual college player draft.

    Martin A. Knight,

    As an African American Computer Math Major, with high 90 percentile standardized test scores, and a knowledge of the academic success of black students, do you believe you’re incapable of competing with white and Asian students? If you believe you can compete, what would your response be to El Blogero, who claims you cannot?

    Michelle writes:

    >>>And if you say (correctly) that most Chinese-Americans now in CA are fairly recent arrivals or their children, it still seems strange that Mexican immigrants of the same decades should get a leg up and the Chinese not”

    There is a minority pecking order in America. The stratification indicates which minorities are “favored” and “model”. Cuban Americans have a much higher acceptabily quotent in Southern Florida by the controlling white population than Haitian Americans do, even though they come from virtually the same latittude in the Carribean.

    Unless, that is…you disagree and believe that the white majority treats EVERYONE the same.

    –Cobra

  29. superdestroyer March 11, 2005 at 8:45 am | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Once again you have used different representationn in a group as prima facia evidence that discrimination exists. Yet, demographic studies who that there are huge differences between blacks, asian, whites, and hispanics even it comes to preparing for college. Black families are less likely to subscribe to a newspaper, visit a library, purchase books, visit museums, visit historical sites, etc than black families.

    Current discrimination has nothing to do with the difference in lifestyles, yet you want to government to “make up the difference” cause by personal decisions.

  30. El Blogero March 11, 2005 at 8:48 am | | Reply

    I have stated in two previous posts that I find the premise that blacks and latinos cannot compete academically with whites and Asians today, odious and I reject it. Accordingly, it is inaccurate to state that I claim blacks and hispanics cannot compete with whites and Asians academically. That, you see, is the irony in this debate. The supporters of group AA are the ones whose views actually support this odius and “inflammatory” premise. They may argue the “why” of nature or nurture, but obviously to argue the “why,” including that it is nurture, they must believe the underlying premise of group inability to compete as starting point. Contrary to the insinuation, I am not forced to answer the “nature or nurture” question because I reject the the premise of group inability to compete in the first place. I’ll say it again: that premise is so odious, that supporters of group AA cannot bring themselves to admit that this is precisely the underlying premise of their position. Those who do not support group AA, including this commenter, reject this premise.

  31. Scott March 11, 2005 at 12:13 pm | | Reply

    Cobra:

    I’m with Blogero. It’s the mantra of the AA crowd that blacks & Latinos can’t compete with whites and Asians. Other than the fact that this statement isn’t true and makes blanket assumptions about all blacks, all Latinos, all whites and all Asians, I have no problem with it.

    Your comment about the American pecking order is interesting. I’ve always felt this to be one of the better arguments against AA. What will you do tomorrow if the powers that be decide that blacks have had enough remedy and now it’s __________’s turn?

    Actus:

    “by dwindingly do[ing] it”. Care to define how long that is? An article a short while ago mentioned ‘thousands’ of years. Hopefully even the hardcore AA crowd would disagree with this. We’ve all seen the idea that the time to end it is never, because Jim Crow is waiting to jump. Justice O’Connor said 25 years, and the AA outcry was huge. I suppose it’s a great comfort to young whites or Asians of poor means that they might only be discriminated against for as little as 25 years.

  32. actus March 11, 2005 at 1:06 pm | | Reply

    “by dwindingly do[ing] it”. Care to define how long that is?

    It would depend on how large the problem is and how we are addressing it. Since I don’t have the empirical data, no I don’t care to define it.

    Note that there are at least 2 empirical arguments for dwindling uses of race conscious means. One is that the past harm is being addressed and fixed. The other is that the past harm is hard to fix with race conscious means, such as the example that michelle gave of past discrimination against the chinese coupled with lots of todays chinese population being more recent immigrants.

    But I don’t think that the 25 year dicta goes to this question of addressing past harm. The AA jurisprudence in the michigan cases takes as the justification of AA the diversity of the educational institution, not addressing past harms.

  33. El Blogero March 11, 2005 at 1:13 pm | | Reply

    This has been an interesting and constructive discussion of this issue, with generally good points on both side, and I am glad I had the opportunity to contribute to it.

    My concern, as I alluded to in my first post, is that supporters of group AA look at groups of people and make some rather unflattering presumptions about them. This underlying premise may be well-intentioned and in their opinions benign, but it is nonetheless unflattering and, in my opinion, odious. I resisted pointing this out in my last post, but note that the person who analogized blacks and latinos competing academically to a losing NFL football team was a person in SUPPORT of group AA.

    All of this certainly leaves the impression that supporters of group AA buy into the premise that blacks and latinos are unable to compete academically with whites and Asians, perhaps (at least in part) BECAUSE of discrimination. Those opposed, including this commenter, believe that blacks and latinos can indeed compete academically DESPITE of discrimination.

  34. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 11, 2005 at 1:40 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    “Just out of curiosity, would you use “race conscious means” to remedy the hurts caused by the abominable treatment of, say, 19th-c. Chinese immigrants to California?”

    I think the problem here would be in detecting those hurts in today’s chinese population. Race conscious means wouldn’t appear to be well tailored to that problem in the way that post jim crow race conscious means were.

    Look, just for the moment, leave blacks out of the discussion, and look at immigrant groups. Does anyone deny that there is anti-Chinese prejudice? Or Anti-Arab prejudice? Or anti-Pakistani prejudice? If AA is really meant to be compensatory for the damage of prejudice, does it matter — should it matter — that they are already doing well? Presumably, in the absence of prejudice, in a just world, they would be doing even better, yes? So why not the leg (further) up?

    This is the problem for me. You can’t attribute all cases of an ethnic groups’ falling below the mean to prejudice, and also brush off the existence of groups against which there is also prejudice, but are above the mean. (Meaning by “mean” — sorry, no pun, er, “meant” there, just sloppy writing — whatever scale you want to look at — test scores, actual university admissions, income, any index of “success” you want.)

    Which brings me to Cobra’s “pecking order.” Sure, there are degrees of racism. The case of the Cubans in Miami is difficult to generalize from, because the exiles were largely wealthy and well-educated when they got here, and the Haitians certainly were not. But obviously it is better to be Cuban than Haitian in Miami, and likely better to be either than to be (native-born) black.

    But none of this explains the phenomenon of ethnic groups that, despite prejudice (which even Cobra will admit is non-zero) against them, outperform the white majority in one area or another. Or tells us what to do about it.

    I’m grasping for an analogy, here. The following is poor, but about the best I can do on the spur of the moment. Suppose there are four Abu Ghraib detainees, who have all been abused — some more, some less, but there is no doubt that all of them suffered in detention. They are released, and three of the four do very poorly thereafter; they’re tormented by memories of the humiliation, they can’t concentrate, they can’t sleep, they can’t work as well as they could before. The fourth, on the contrary, emerges largely unscathed, and indeed prospers in business, and is doing better even than he was before the abuse, and better than most of his neighbors.

    Suppose the US orders financial compensation for all harmed at Abu Ghraib. Do they pass over this fourth man because, as actus put it, there was difficulty in “detecting [his] hurts”? He’s happy, he’s wealthy; why does he need compensation for the suffering no one denies he endured?

  35. actus March 11, 2005 at 1:43 pm | | Reply

    “Do they pass over this fourth man because, as actus put it, there was difficulty in “detecting [his] hurts”? He’s happy, he’s wealthy; why does he need compensation for the suffering no one denies he endured?”

    If no one denies he endured it, then there is no difficulty in detecting his hurts.

  36. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 11, 2005 at 2:10 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    If no one denies he endured it, then there is no difficulty in detecting his hurts.

    Well, then, as I asked near the top of the same post, does anyone deny that Chinese-Americans, Arab-Americans, Pakistani-Americans experience prejudice in this country? Is that not a “hurt”? And as long as we’re in the business of compensating such “hurts” with preferences, shouldn’t these groups be preferred? If not, why not?

  37. actus March 11, 2005 at 2:42 pm | | Reply

    “And as long as we’re in the business of compensating such “hurts” with preferences, shouldn’t these groups be preferred? ”

    Sure. But I think we’re going to have measurement problems still. To what extent are they ‘losing’ because of their language skills, and to what extent is it because of invidious discrimination? etc…

    The guy in abu ghraib? Not so hard to come up with some level of damages.

  38. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 11, 2005 at 3:09 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    No, you still don’t understand. By hypothesis, the groups I mention aren’t “losing”; they’re succeeding. They are doing better than median (test scores, income, whatever). Yet no one denies that there is prejudice against them, or that they suffer discrimination.

    So the question is whether they ought to be compensated for the discrimination by way of preferences, and if not, why not? I don’t dispute that it’d be hard to gauge exactly how much preference they ought to get, but on your line of argument it ought to be more than zero, because the level of prejudice is more than zero.

    In short, actus, I want to know what you propose to do when there is a group suffering prejudice that nonetheless is doing better than the majority population. Do you offer preferences to compensate for the prejudice, or do you say “well, you don’t need them anyway”? Because lumping the minority group suffering prejudice in with the white population is a de facto disadvantage, and however small the advantage justice would give to those suffering prejudice, it has to be positive, not negative.

  39. actus March 11, 2005 at 3:33 pm | | Reply

    “By hypothesis, the groups I mention aren’t “losing”; they’re succeeding. ”

    I know what you meant. That in the end they are ahead but there is discrimination that is holding them back from being even further ahead. I understood that. I’m talking about losses from discrimination, hwich don’t discount other possible gains which might offset that in the end.

    “In short, actus, I want to know what you propose to do when there is a group suffering prejudice that nonetheless is doing better than the majority population.”

    Perhaps a good line to stop race conscious fixes of past harms is at the point when we notice that the group is despite these past harms doing well.

    This way we understand undoing the past harm not in a compensatory way, but in a catching up or equalizing sort of way. If the group is already ahead, there is no catching up we can offer them. This non-compensatory conception gets us back to King’s quote: catching up with the fellow runner.

    This ought to please the crowds who don’t want preferences to go on forever.

  40. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 11, 2005 at 4:16 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    Perhaps a good line to stop race conscious fixes of past harms is at the point when we notice that the group is despite these past harms doing well.

    But, actus, at this point I’m talking about current, not past, prejudice. I said so repeatedly. Surely you don’t deny that there is current racial prejudice against the groups I named.

    Your “catching-up” model is interesting. I only wonder how long it would be before it would be employed on behalf of whites against East Asians. Or shouldn’t it be? It already has been, most famously in San Francisco, where, for a while, Chinese-American students had to out-score white students to be eligible for Lowell High School, SF’s “elite” public high school. In the vernacular, we call that “racial discrimination against people of color.”

  41. John Rosenberg March 11, 2005 at 4:36 pm | | Reply

    As he twists and turns to justify the preferences he likes while disallowing those he doesn’t, actus asks, To what extent are they ‘losing’ because of their language skills, and to what extent is it because of invidious discrimination? etc…

    But of course the same question can be asked about those who don’t succeed, or in Michelle’s example don’t succeed as much as they would absent some obstacle. Surely not all of the relative disadvantage suffered by blacks as a group, or any individual black, in the present is caused by slavery, Jim Crow, and ongoing discrimination. Surely there is some connection, some of the time, for some people, between their own behavior and choices and their success, or lack of it. Just ask Bill Cosby.

  42. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 11, 2005 at 5:00 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    I ought to have addressed this:

    This ought to please the crowds who don’t want preferences to go on forever.

    Why should it? You are practically arguing that any minority ethnic group that falls below the median in whatever category you deem important ought to be compensated so long as it falls below the median, and balancing it with the proviso that any minority ethnic group that rises to the median or over won’t get compensated. Not only doesn’t that say that preferences won’t “go on forever,” but it practically guarantees that they will. I mean, just look at it for a second.

  43. Cobra March 11, 2005 at 5:20 pm | | Reply

    If the argument is that a few members of a aggrieved minority group are doing alright, so there’s no longer need to address a problem, well…what’s the point of this blog? For all the hysteria about the EVIL of Affirmative Action, I don’t see any shortage of WHITE American billionaires, multi-millionaires, political leaders, CEO’s and moguls. Congress is still in no danger of a brown skinned majority, and the vast majority of American College students are still white.

    –Cobra

  44. Cobra March 11, 2005 at 5:28 pm | | Reply

    El Blogero writes:

    >>> Those opposed, including this commenter, believe that blacks and latinos can indeed compete academically DESPITE of discrimination.”

    Why should blacks and latinos TOLERATE discrimination from the majority in the first place?

    Another sports analogy example.

    In 1947, Jackie Robinson was 28 years old, and a veteran of the Negro Leagues. When Branch Rickey’s AFFIRMATIVE ACTION-TYPE decision allowed him access to the Major Leagues he responded with a career .311 batting average. Now, Robinson faced DISCRIMINATION, but when given ACCESS to compete, he was indeed COMPETITIVE. By the thought-processes you’re accusing me of having, I would have to believe that Robinson was INFERIOR, and just needed a hand-out to get along.

    Is that what you’re saying, El Blogero?

    –Cobra

  45. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 11, 2005 at 5:54 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Who are you addressing here?

    If the argument is that a few members of a aggrieved minority group are doing alright, so there’s no longer need to address a problem, well…what’s the point of this blog?

    Because I don’t actually see anyone saying that.

  46. Cobra March 11, 2005 at 6:09 pm | | Reply

    Michelle:

    >>>Because I don’t actually see anyone saying that.”

    It was an open question to the blogosphere. That’s why I used “If”.

    –Cobra

  47. El Blogero March 11, 2005 at 6:20 pm | | Reply

    Actually, you just proved it on your own. I really don’t thing that the sport analogies help the group AA case.

    Jackie Robinson was a superior baseball player (indeed athlete) by major league standards, so Branch Rickey’s actions were not an AA-type action, unless AA is completely redefined to mean hiring any black or latino, even if he is in fact a SUPERIOR candidate who would qualify in the absense of AA. Breaking the color line, as Rickey and Robinson did, is more aking to the ending Jim Crow laws or policies that specifically barred minorities. Once the bar was broken, competition was allowed to take place. In baseball, that meant that players with the same or superior skills made the team and those with lesser skills did not, regardless of color. This was the opposite of the state of affairs before the breaking of the color line (wherein superior ballplayers were barred from playing because of color and inferior white players were allowed to make the team). In essence, major league baseball made “race conscious” decisions to admit only whites and bar blacks.

    In the AA context, the Robinson example means that no one would be barred because of race, but instead everyone would be judged based on merit and objective non-race conscious criteria. This is why sports analogies do not help the group AA case. It means that if you bat .311, you make the team. If you bat .110, you do not, regardless of race. Replace batting averages for test scores and you see that the analogy does not favor group AA proponents. Those of us opposed to group AA argue that blacks and latinos can bat .311 and therefore make the team on merit. Replace batting averages for academic achievement, and I would still rather be arguing my side of the argument.

  48. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 11, 2005 at 6:42 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    [me:] “Because I don’t actually see anyone saying that.”

    It was an open question to the blogosphere. That’s why I used “If”.

    Oookay. The question was this:

    If the argument is that a few members of a aggrieved minority group are doing alright, so there’s no longer need to address a problem, well…what’s the point of this blog?

    Cobra, put me out of my intellectual misery. Please explain why the “blogosphere’s” reaction to a hypothetical “argument” that no one seems to have made has any damn thing at all to do with whether John’s blog has a “point.” I know my mind doubtless moves more slowly than yours, so feel free to spell it out for me.

  49. actus March 11, 2005 at 8:13 pm | | Reply

    “But, actus, at this point I’m talking about current, not past, prejudice. I said so repeatedly. ”

    I would guess with current discrimination its hard to tell what level of damage has been wrought by the discrimination.

    Another point, that gets us back to the King quote, is that it doesn’t just address negative effects of all discrimination, just the state imposed kind that was jim crow.

    “Why should it? You are practically arguing that any minority ethnic group that falls below the median in whatever category you deem important ought to be compensated so long as it falls below the median”

    Not really, because we have to be able to determine whether it is due to discrimination or not. And now we’ve further clarified it, in the spirit of hte King quote, to mean state, not private, discrimination.

  50. Cobra March 11, 2005 at 11:13 pm | | Reply

    El Blogero writes:

    >>>Breaking the color line, as Rickey and Robinson did, is more aking to the ending Jim Crow laws or policies that specifically barred minorities.”

    Not at all, El. Jackie Robinson would’ve been subject to ARREST for riding in the front of a bus, dining at an all white resturant or drinking from a white water fountain. Jackie was NOT subject to arrest for playing baseball with white men. This was about the confrontation of white racism outside of the courtroom.

    The point of the Jackie Robinson story you seem to miss. ON HIS OWN, no matter HOW QUALIFIED, Robinson would NOT have BEEN ALLOWED to play major league baseball in 1947. You can’t bring yourself to address that point.

    >>>Those of us opposed to group AA argue that blacks and latinos can bat .311 and therefore make the team on merit. Replace batting averages for academic achievement, and I would still rather be arguing my side of the argument.”

    America has never been a meritocracy, and is still not one today. If you believe it actually IS, please provide evidence to support your claim.

    –Cobra

  51. Chetly Zarko March 12, 2005 at 3:56 am | | Reply

    The biggest irony here is that the College Democrats program is entirely race-neutral — free cookies for everyone regardless. Although somewhat socialist in perspective, not morally objectionable and based on his writings, which advocated universal socio-economic programs helping poor whites as well as blacks, MLK Jr. probably would have approved (no one “knows” King’s feelings on modern preferences, but to use the “starting line” quote without including the paragraph several paragraphs after it about programs being designed for all poor, is as disingenous as only talking about the “content of character” quote). In fact, I can not imagine how any true “socialist” would indeed support race preferences.

    Cobra, while there are a few who make a strict “meritocracy” argument, I don’t think John’s argument is that, nor is mine or the vast middle. Our point is discrimination or preference on the basis of race (or gender) is wrong – obviously selective decisions have to be made based upon criteria, the question is which criteria are appropriate. I happen to personally believe that alumni and VIP criteria are also wrong, but they address different areas of law than race or gender, and are likely to be voluntarily curtailed in a non-race preference regime. I also happen to personally believe that the use of certain socio-economic criteria would be permissable and desirable – and even though MCRI doesn’t mandate specific alternatives, I support it because it leaves the decision as to which ones up to the autonomy (in Michigan universities have a certain degree of separation from other branches of state government) and creativity of university policymakers (which may and should vary because of the differing needs of each of the 12 Michigan public universities).

  52. John Rosenberg March 12, 2005 at 7:46 am | | Reply

    …while there are a few who make a strict “meritocracy” argument, I don’t think John’s argument is that, nor is mine or the vast middle

    Chetly – This is exactly right. I have tried to be very explicit on a number of occasions that my only concern, at least concerning discrimination (and hence Discriminations), is about what should not be done — discriminating on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender. Reasonable people, and institutions, can differ on what should be done — how much emphasis to place on grades, tests, parental alumni affiliations, athletic ability, etc., etc. I myself tend to favor “merit” as traditionally defined, but I believe universties are free to favor it less than I do or ignore it altogether if they choose. But they should not be free to engage in racial discrimination.

  53. actus March 12, 2005 at 10:35 am | | Reply

    “But they should not be free to engage in racial discrimination.”

    How about geographical? I can see a state university deciding that certain communities are underserved by certain professionals, and then noticing that admitting people from those communities would improve the number of those professionals in that community.

    I can see a state university seeing as its mission the improvement of its communities.

  54. John Rosenberg March 12, 2005 at 11:05 am | | Reply

    How about geographical?

    actus – You STILL don’t get it! There are all sorts of discrimination that are either smart or dumb (geographical, legacies, peanut farmers, oboe players) that I might either like or not like, but don’t you see how offensive it is for you put all of them on the same plane with racial or religious discrimination? Maybe not, if you really don’t see anything wrong with racial discrimination.

    Before you write anything like this again here, do as search on my blog for IUNS (which stands for Invidious Ubiquitous Non-Sequitur) and read them all. There will be a quiz….

  55. actus March 12, 2005 at 11:23 am | | Reply

    “but don’t you see how offensive it is for you put all of them on the same plane with racial or religious discrimination?”

    It really depends. Because I could use a geographical preference/distaste for cities as a proxy for racial preference/distaste.

    Its the old “despite of / because of” distinction of equal protection law.

  56. Cobra March 12, 2005 at 11:43 am | | Reply

    Actus,

    Oh, you “get it” perfectly. John spells it out in this sentence:

    >>>Chetly – This is exactly right. I have tried to be very explicit on a number of occasions that my ONLY concern, at least concerning discrimination (and hence Discriminations), is about what should not be done — discriminating on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender.”

    The irony is, for both John and Chetly too, for that matter, is that throughout the time I’ve posted here, I’ve BURIED them in research, data and accounts of “discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity and gender” to which the replies were basically…

    “Yes, discrimination still exists.”

    Of course, they NEVER provide possible solutions to this said discrimination. They both tend to defer to anonymous societal bodies…like “reasonable people”, “government…” etc, to address these centuries old issues about racism, sexism, and religious intolerance. The ONLY agenda I see from either of them, and I’m careful here not to take them out of context, is the DESTRUCTION of Affirmative Action, an act which, oh “coincidently”–benefits WHITE MALES.

    Now, Actus…I’m not surprised by this, nor am I declaring either of them “evil.” They are both extremely careful with their language, following the GOP Pollster Frank Luntz’ recipie of adhering to lofty principles, without allowing the FACTS on the GROUND to distract them.

    I would ask both of them, here and now, to tell me with SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, how Prop 209 in California, and I-200 in Washington, has IMPROVED the lives of ALL RESIDENTS–including African Americans, of course.

    –Cobra

  57. John Rosenberg March 12, 2005 at 12:19 pm | | Reply

    It really depends. Because I could use a geographical preference/distaste for cities as a proxy for racial preference/distaste.

    No, it doesn’t. Or rather, the only thing “it” “depends” on is whether you’re giving preferences based on race or not. It is possible to engage in racial discrimination without every mentioning race: the old Grandfather Clauses, which exempted from literacy tests all prospective voters who could prove their grandfathers had been allowed to vote, is the classic example. I doubt your city example works, but in any event you’ve lost sight of the point, which is that discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity are not of a piece with geographical or whatever other forms of discrimination. You, on the other hand, think racial discrimination is no worse than these others. Shame on you.

    By the way, you obviously still haven’t read my IUNS posts, as required. You flunk the quiz.

  58. actus March 12, 2005 at 12:27 pm | | Reply

    “You, on the other hand, think racial discrimination is no worse than these others. Shame on you.”

    Certainly not when these others are used as proxies, like your grandfather clauses. Shame on you for excusing these.

  59. John Rosenberg March 12, 2005 at 12:40 pm | | Reply

    for both John and Chetly too, for that matter, is that throughout the time I’ve posted here, I’ve BURIED them in research, data and accounts of “discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity and gender” to which the replies were basically…

    “Yes, discrimination still exists.”

    Of course, they NEVER provide possible solutions to this said discrimination.

    cobra – By my own lights, at least, I’ve been very patient with you, but now you’ve tried my patience too much.

    My problem is not with what you say, even though I disagree. My problem is that you keep saying the same thing, or rather to put in a form you seem to prefer, YOU KEEP SAYING THE SAME THING, OVER AND OVER, no matter its relevance (or lack) to the post on which you are ostensbily commenting.

    Your REAMS OF DATA proving discrimination are a waste of everyone’s time, and my space, because, as you recognize, I don’t deny the existence of discrimination. (As an aside, you’re also wrong in saying I offer no solution. The solution to discrimination is laws against discrimination, and my solution is to enforce them vigorously. You are entitled not to like that solution, but you reveal obtuseness when you assert that I’m happy to let discrimination continue, presumably because it benefits WHITE MALES.

    Not only do you insist on dumping data that I generally don’t dispute, but you also have become — actually, became quite a while ago — a johnny-one-note, singing the same song over and over again: DISCRIMINATION EXISTS! IT JUSTIFIES THE DISCRIMINATION I LIKE!

    So, from now on, no more discrimination data dumps or repetitions of those arguments. I will delete them, perhaps substituting “cobra argument no. 1 – discrimination exists” in their place.

    I realize that I may be playing one song all the time as well, but hey, it’s my player. If I bore people, they are free to vote with their mouse and not read it any more. If you can limit your comments to remarks that are relevant to the occasioning post, and do so without saying the same thing each time, and without dumping loads of data that is not disputed or relevant, then by all means continue commenting. Otherwise, please find another platform.

  60. John Rosenberg March 12, 2005 at 12:48 pm | | Reply

    Certainly not when these others are used as proxies, like your grandfather clauses. Shame on you for excusing these.

    actus – Since you seem to think that I was excusing “proxies” like grandfather clauses, I’m beginning to think that you have trouble reading. Some proxies are proxies (like Grandfather Clauses); some are not and are merely “disparate impact” arguments, which should be rejected.

  61. actus March 12, 2005 at 1:23 pm | | Reply

    “some are not and are merely “disparate impact” arguments, which should be rejected.”

    Then I think we can all agree that AA should be turned into a disparate impact sort of thing.

  62. Chetly Zarko March 12, 2005 at 4:35 pm | | Reply

    Cobra;

    You are a blatant liar or a sloppy researcher and reader, prone to using false and ad homimen personal attacks because you have no better arguments. We have proposed the solutions – you’re “rhetorical” style (similar to that of the official opposition to MCRI) is that if you say an untruth often enough people might perceive it as true.

    You say you have “BURIED” us in research (I really haven’t seen that much, except for some of your repetitive posts here proving a fact that doesn’t “clash” with our arguments) about the existence of discrimination, and then falsely suggest this (which is either a lie or sloppy):

    Of course, they NEVER provide possible solutions to this said discrimination.

    In addition to agreeing with John that removing discrimination as a counterproductive (for BOTH the preferred [read Richard Sander, among many others] and non-preferred) “remedy” for the specific discrimination category that bothers you is itself a solution, I have published in a number of easily accessible and highly public places my support for a number of possibilities from more “liberal” class of “socio-economic” programs. Specifically, in my Michigan Bar Journal (http://chetly.home.comcast.net/michbar.html) analysis, I vigorously attack the use alumni and VIP preferences, support vigorous enforcement of existing civil rights law, and I propose, using as evidence archival data from the University of Michigan’s policymakers’ own secret discussions and data, that socio-economic alternatives would accomplish most, if not all, of the “social justice” ends that race preferences are allegedly intended to produce (because, of course, “diversity” is a facade argument, since there would be no moral justification for preferences if blacks were performing at higher levels than whites but choosing to concentrate in different fields, historically black colleges, or any number of reasons why they might not hit proportional representation). I propose in separate writings as an additional solution fixing K-12 education and solving the “achievement gap” before preferences are ever necessary (and suggest that preferences both “hide” the need for reform and give politicians an excuse to say they’re doing something when they’re not, which is yet another part of the solution removing preferences creates).

    Ironically, gender preferences favoring women are now hurting black men because the “achievement gap” is far more disparate amongst minority boys (and even with race preferences, the “pool problem” U-Michigan cited would mean that the preferences to all women, since they are a much larger group than all black men, would “crowd out” spaces for black men), although non-minority boys also have an overal achievement gap that is not quite as extreme but still significant. I don’t support preferences to boys over girls as a counter-solution however (or only to black men, or any other variation) – because the problem with all gender and race preferences is that they create such wierd distortions in admissions a and the choices people make that they should all be eliminated, which goes back to John’s point.

  63. Cobra March 13, 2005 at 8:41 am | | Reply

    Chetly writes:

    >>>You are a blatant liar or a sloppy researcher and reader, prone to using false and ad homimen personal attacks because you have no better arguments.”

    Without resorting to “Cobra answer no. 1”, I find it interesting that you use THIS particular sentence to accuse ME of “ad hominem personal attacks.”

    >>>In addition to agreeing with John that removing discrimination as a counterproductive (for BOTH the preferred [read Richard Sander, among many others] and non-preferred) “remedy” for the specific discrimination category that bothers you is itself a solution, I have published in a number of easily accessible and highly public places my support for a number of possibilities from more “liberal” class of “socio-economic” programs.”

    So in other words, you validate my statement that you never used these alleged “solutions” HERE in discussions with ME on these blog threads. I guess it would be easier in human discourse to just say, “I disagree. If you want my solutions, Google me and hunt for them.”

    It would certainly save on John’s file space.

    >>> I propose in separate writings as an additional solution fixing K-12 education and solving the “achievement gap” before preferences are ever necessary”

    Now there you have something that I can actually AGREE with you on. HOW to

    “fix K-12 education” and “solve the achievement gap” is the $10,000 question. But it of course isn’t the final solution by any means, as many Asian American advocate groups point out.

    http://www.aamovement.net/viewpoints/affirmativeact2.html

    John writes:

    >>>If you can limit your comments to remarks that are relevant to the occasioning post, and do so without saying the same thing each time, and without dumping loads of data that is not disputed or relevant, then by all means continue commenting. Otherwise, please find another platform.”

    Your blog. Your rules. I will comply.

    –Cobra

  64. Chetly Zarko March 13, 2005 at 10:48 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    The irony that you see in my response to your ad homimens (that I would question your integrity or thoroughness) is misplaced. To an extent, my charge is “against your person” and therefore “ad hominem,” but since the topic of this thread had directly become your personal conduct, it was not irrelevant and it is true (a “true and relevant” personal attack may be appropriate discourse – for example, an allegation that the President of the United States committed perjury, obstructed justice, or conspired on a break-in would be a legitimate ad homimen (even though none would change the way people should respond to particular policies of that President). Your sloppiness or integrity, of course, has no bearing on the question of whether race preferences are or are not bad public policy.) Finally, I would posit that it is impossible to engage in an “ad homimen” attack against an anonymous writer, let alone one that identifies as a snake.

    As to your claim:

    So in other words, you validate my statement that you never used these alleged “solutions” HERE in discussions with ME…

    This is yet another example of your distortion and miscontextualization. Of course, 1) I have made and repeated summaries of the same arguments in John’s blog, as well as linked to my website numerous times, so it is untrue that I haven’t said it. Your fallacy of argument is that because I’ve pointed to outside sources in one response that somehow and automatically that implies my hundreds of other responses are devoid of the same content. 2) you use these fallacies of argument in a way that appears intentional and “rhetorical”, a term which you admit in another response, is the “style” you prefer. 2) you are anonymous and I can’t google (or research your history or even “personally attack”) you, but you can me, so I have no sympathy for your anonymous distortions.

  65. David Nieporent March 13, 2005 at 11:17 pm | | Reply

    Responding to actus quoting MLK:

  66. Cobra March 14, 2005 at 12:39 am | | Reply

    Chetly Zarko writes:

    >>>To an extent, my charge is “against your person” and therefore “ad hominem,” but since the topic of this thread had directly become your personal conduct, it was not irrelevant and it is true…

    …Finally, I would posit that it is impossible to engage in an “ad homimen” attack against an anonymous writer, let alone one that identifies as a snake.”

    Very interesting. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re stating here that you have accomplished “the impossible.” In sentence A, you claim that you DID commit the dictionary defintion of an “ad hominem” attack, but in sentence B you claim that would be impossible because I’m–“anonymous.” Well, a pseudonym is not the same thing as “anonymous.” There are other cartoonists, writers, performers and who use pseudonyms. Tom Tommorrow, Michael Savage, 50 Cent, etc. If my given name was as unique and memorable as, oh..say…CHETLY ZARKO, I probably wouldn’t use one. This is meant as no slight to you, or any other members of the house of Zarko.

    I’m still trying to figure out how calling someone a “blatant liar” isn’t an authentic ad hominem attack, but I don’t want this to escalate any further, at least from my end. I’ll just write it off as a “sticks and stones” strategy from an undoubtably famous and important public figure from Michigan.

    David writes:

    >>>Cobra, I don’t say you’re a liar, but you’re clearly a sloppy reader, because in this very thread you’ve badly misread comments. Your March 11, 8:06 AM post accuses El Blogero of saying exactly the opposite of what he actually said.”

    First, thank you for NOT calling me a liar. Actually, El Blogero tried to define people who believe in preferences to hold specific views and I disagreed with him. If there was a disconnect, to err is human.

    >>>You also misunderstand history. Jackie Robinson was not the beneficiary of racial preferences. He earned his job based on merit.”

    I disagree. The position wasn’t available until Branch Rickey extended the opportunity. I’m not alone in this opinion:

    http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/archive/93-94/03-94/031794-Jackie_Robinson_st.html

    –Cobra

  67. Chetly Zarko March 14, 2005 at 2:50 am | | Reply

    Cobra,

    I find it ironic that you’d claim Branch Rickey was extending a preference when he was actually the first in his industry to have the courage (Rickey put his life on the line, although I’m sure he wouldn’t see it that way) to END PREFERENCES, the most egregious possible (that of a complete ban of a class of individuals), against blacks and in favor of whites.

    Fighting discrimination does not imply that one is giving a preference.

    Secondarily, Branch Rickey was “giving” Jackie Robinson nothing. Rights are inherent to each individual, and our Declaration recognizes correctly that they exist independent of what other individuals, rulers, kings, or governments may say or do to hinder them. Whether or not you believe a creator or some other force bestowed them upon us, the founding principle of America is that the rights belong to the individual in a fundamental sense. Branch Rickey was merely acknowledging Robinson’s right to compete equally on the same playing field as whites, with the same rules — Robinson earned every bit of the rest.

    As to our arcane discussion of ad homimens, there is no contradiction between sentence A and B (in A, again, you fail to read the clause, “to the extent.”). As to the idea that I called you a “blatant liar” with no other qualification, once again you sloppily ignore that I qualified that with the “or sloppy reader” in the same sentence, a charge that David also makes, and that you admit to in at least one case.

    I thank you on behalf of my mother for the compliment to her skillful abilities in naming me in a memorable way. Still, I’m sure her purpose was more for her own edification (to which I humbly submit that any woman who bears a child is entitled) and in a spirit of family compromise, than it was for the future memorableness in Cobra’s mind.

  68. Cobra March 14, 2005 at 7:59 am | | Reply

    Chetly Zarko writes:

    >>>Branch Rickey was merely acknowledging Robinson’s right to compete equally on the same playing field as whites, with the same rules — Robinson earned every bit of the rest.”

    Branch Rickey cast the sole vote among baseball owners to desegregate. The vote in 1946 was 15-1. Where would the opportunity for Robinson to play major league ball had come from if not for the “diversity program”

    of Rickey? One can even make an argument that Robinson wasn’t the “best” Negro player of his era, (Cool Pappa Bell, Josh Gibson, Satchell Page, etc) but was particularly chosen because of his discipline and mentality.

    Obviously, the owners of baseball were NOT adhering to the founding principles you mention.

    >>>As to our arcane discussion of ad homimens, there is no contradiction between sentence A and B (in A, again, you fail to read the clause, “to the extent.”). As to the idea that I called you a “blatant liar” with no other qualification, once again you sloppily ignore that I qualified that with the “or sloppy reader” in the same sentence, a charge that David also makes, and that you admit to in at least one case.”

    Okay, so if I’m to read this paragraph NEATLY, you’re claiming that ad hominem attacks aren’t REALLY ad hominem attacks if one uses qualifying clauses.

    Interesting…..

    I could easily go somewhere with this, but I won’t. It’s not my blog, and it’s not in the spirit of discourse.

    –Cobra

  69. John Rosenberg March 14, 2005 at 8:55 am | | Reply

    Where would the opportunity for Robinson to play major league ball had come from if not for the “diversity program”

    of Rickey?

    In other words, Rickey wasn’t trying to sign the best player he could, while simultaneously striking a blow against the racial discrimination that he abhored? He wanted to sign any (at least reasonably talented) black player, although one with an approved “discipline and mentality,” in order to provide “diversity” to his still preferred white players? He thought having his white players exposed to — what exactly? “cultural difference”? — would make them better fielders and hitters?

    cobra, I think you have a great future in front of you if you will only seize it — as a satiric humor writer.

  70. El Blogero March 14, 2005 at 5:53 pm | | Reply

    I gave up trying to make sense of that Jackie Robinson analogy a long time ago. It is paradoxical to the point of self-parody for someone to claim that major league baseball’s abolition of the color line, which ended “race conscious” selection of players, is the same as the continuation of group AA, which calls for “race conscious” selection of candidates. Unless there are universities today that bar blacks and latinos, I fail to see 1947 baseball and 2005 higher education as analogous.

  71. Cobra March 14, 2005 at 7:19 pm | | Reply

    El Blogero writes:

    >>>Unless there are universities today that bar blacks and latinos, I fail to see 1947 baseball and 2005 higher education as analogous.”

    Higher education is not the ONLY area of society Affirmative Action affects.

    As a person who advocated meritocracy in an earlier post, the Robinson analogy should be crystal clear. Here was an individual whose mere qualifications alone weren’t enough to secure employment at the highest levels of his trade based upon race. It took “Minority Outreach” to do so. The Brooklyn Dodgers had no problem fielding an all white team in 1946, so it isn’t as though there was a dearth of other talent available.

    Qualification without opportunity is futility, IMHO.

    John writes:

    >>>In other words, Rickey wasn’t trying to sign the best player he could, while simultaneously striking a blow against the racial discrimination that he abhored? He wanted to sign any (at least reasonably talented) black player, although one with an approved “discipline and mentality,” in order to provide “diversity” to his still preferred white players?”

    It wasn’t ONLY that Rickey wanted to sign a good black ball player. Rickey knew what kind of hostility there was to desegregating baseball. If he was successful with Robinson, the door would be open for more minority players. He recruited Robinson because he had the discipline not to fight back, or react against the enormous level of abuse he would take.

    I’m not “data dumping”, but please read the very informative article on this subject I linked in the other passage. It not only provides insight into Rickey’s psyche, but talks about 9 principles of Affirmative Action that worked with Robinson, and are still valid today.

    “PSYCHOLOGISTS USE JACKIE ROBINSON STORY TO MAKE A PITCH FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE WORKPLACE”

    http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/archive/93-94/03-94/031794-Jackie_Robinson_st.html

    >>> He thought having his white players exposed to — what exactly? “cultural difference”? — would make them better fielders and hitters?”

    It made the ones that didn’t leave the team in protest something greater than any box score could explain. The Brooklyn Dodgers became one of the most beloved sports franchises in history. Here was America’s pastime at the height of the Golden Era (and Jim Crow for that matter) with blacks and whites performing together on the same level playing field. As for his white teammates, I will remind all about Hall of Famer Pee Wee Reese, Robinson’s double play partner who was surely greater than his batting average and RBI total with moments like these:

    >>>Reese’s offensive career totals — 126 home runs, 885 RBIs — did not begin to measure his value to the Dodgers, or to baseball.

    Known for his calm leadership, sure-handed fielding and clutch hits, Reese played a key role in easing Robinson’s road into the majors in 1947.

    During one particularly tough time when the abuse was getting ugly at Crosley Field in Cincinnati, Reese walked over and put his arm over the rookie’s shoulder, a show of unity from a white to a black that spoke volumes…

    …”That was a message sent to one and all that a boy from the South puts his arms around a black man and says, ‘Hey, we’re equal, we’re teammates, and we’re in this thing together.’ And that was typical of Pee Wee,” (Vin) Scully said.

    http://www.cnnsi.com/baseball/mlb/news/1999/08/14/reese_obit_ap/

    Think about it…two World War II veterans who weren’t even ALLOWED to fight beside each other in the segregated US millitary showing open comraderie as TEAMMATES on the baseball diamond. It had a monumentally positive impact on society, IMHO, especially when you consider what dominates the news about Baseball in 2005.

    I know I have a tendency to criticize this country’s track record (Cobra arguments #1-17), but I salute the COURAGE and HONOR of people like Branch Rickey and Pee Wee Reese, who didn’t take the most popular stance, but most assuredly the right one.

    –Cobra

  72. Chetly Zarko March 15, 2005 at 2:26 am | | Reply

    Cobra writes:

    Qualification without opportunity is futility, IMHO.

    This may be correct, but the converse is also true:

    Opportunity without qualification is futility.,

    Richard Sander’s study is a good empirical look at this, but both statements make philosophical and common-sense.

    Cobra, if what you mean by “affirmative action” is a program that prohibits discrimination, or flies against pre-existing preferences, like Branch Rickey’s, then we are in full and complete agreement. If Rickey’s action was “diversity”, we agree. In fact, this is exactly what MCRI is all about – we have always said we have no problem with “affirmative action” or “diversity,” as long as those terms are precisely and properly understood according to their original definitions.

Say What?