Is Promoting “Social Equality” A Mission Of Elite Universities?

According to an article in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education, new report compiled by graduate students attempting to form a union at Yale charges that “Ivy League colleges have made few strides in hiring women and members of minority groups.”

Data in the report, compiled from existing statistics at the U.S. Department of Education, show that of 433 new professors hired into tenure-track positions at Ivy League institutions in 2003, only 150 were women, 14 were black, and 8 were Hispanic….

…. [The report] blames the nation’s most elite colleges, including Yale, Harvard University, and Princeton University, for failing in what the report calls “one of their primary missions as institutions in higher education: the promotion of social equality.”

I doubt that promoting social equality is, or should be, a mission of elite universities, but even if I accepted that notion I would oppose the version of equality, i.e., proportional representation, that is implicit in this charge.

The social equality that universities should promote (if, indeed, they should promote it at all) is the same that all other institutions should promote: equality of opportunity unburdened by bestowing favor or disfavor based on race, religion, or ethnicity.

Say What? (46)

  1. coxeyarmy March 2, 2005 at 9:54 am | | Reply

    Hey John – I’m new to your site and boy, is it addicting. After briefly reading some of your posts, am I correct to conclude that from your vantage point, all past acts of discrimination, whether systematic or not, whether government sponsored or not, have no place in the overall scheme of current politics? In other words, are you ignoring history and thus, presume that everyone NOW is afforded equal opportunity?

  2. notherbob2 March 2, 2005 at 12:13 pm | | Reply

    John, you are wrong on this one. We have here a case of the snake eating its tail. Top schools (we call them that, even though teaching is one of their lowest priorities these days) produce top scholars who become professors at top schools. Since something in the past resulting in the excluded groups having very few representatives in the graduating classes of the top schools, the pool of

  3. John Rosenberg March 2, 2005 at 1:29 pm | | Reply

    coxey: Welcome. No. That is, I do not assume Equality has broken out all over, etc., nor most definitely do I ignore history. Briefly, I think the solution to discrimination is to stop discriminating. Curing the “effects” of discrimination is more complicated, but discriminating against (some of) the descendants of (some of) the dead discriminators is not part of the cure.

    nother: ‘fraid I can’t tell what you think is is wrong about my post, or if in fact you really do think something is wrong….

  4. Nels Nelson March 2, 2005 at 1:43 pm | | Reply

    notherbob, if elite universities are already hiring based on where applicants were educated wouldn’t it be simple (from a data standpoint) for them to institute preferences for applicants who went to non-elite schools? Or are preferences for the underprivileged that are based on race and gender much easier to sell than those based on economics and lineage?

  5. Dom March 2, 2005 at 1:52 pm | | Reply

    If I can give my own view to coxey …

    AA itself is not meant to deal with past discrimination, although some say it does. Most assume (or pretend to assume) that AA will benefit whites since it gives them experiences to be used in a global market.

    The real effect of AA is to 1) calcify the use of race in society in a way that will never change, 2) lower the standards in schools, 3) stigmatize blacks (in the eyes of whites) as people who need help, 4) create socially mandated dishonesty in the use of normalized tests and melinin diverstiy, and 5) change the nature of education such that social engineering, and not knowledge, becomes its primary purpose.

    All of these effects will utlimately hurt everyone, including, perhaps especially, those who are meant to benefit from AA. It is no longer obvious why AA is necessary. We do not need preferences in sports, or Vocational Schools, or many other institutions where the achievement of minorities (especially blacks) has been staggering. Are universities really so ingrained with racism that they need government regulations to be reformed?

    Dom

  6. notherbob2 March 2, 2005 at 2:59 pm | | Reply

    Where John is wrong:

  7. Dom March 2, 2005 at 3:32 pm | | Reply

    “In a perfect universe, representation would be more or less proportional.”

    No. That would be true only if people are random events, which they are not. They come with histories, and different abilities, which may or may not correspond to race, gender, etc.

    The important point is that society has no vested interest in changing this. If one group excels in an area, society’s best interest lies in allowing us to benefit from their services. It does not lie in setting up artificial road-blocks in the hope that everyone will call it a level playing field. And sooner or later, that’s what AA amounts to.

    Dom

  8. John Rosenberg March 2, 2005 at 3:56 pm | | Reply

    Dom’s right, i.e., I’m not wrong.

    In a perfect world, there would be many areas of life where representation of various races/ethnic groups would be nowhere near proportional, just as is true in our imperfect world in those places where “under-” or “over-” representation is not the result of discrimination.

  9. coxeyarmy March 2, 2005 at 4:01 pm | | Reply

    Thanks, John – and thanks to you too, Dom.

    However, if the same laws (and mindset) that created educational barriers for minorities, yet, simulatenously expanded opportunities to the majority population – would not the reverse work now for the minority population? If not for the historical ubiquitous acts of racial discrimation, the nature of this conversation would be rendered hypothetical.

    Also…..AA will:

    “Calcify the use of race in society in a way that will never change” – just as past policies created by the majority population calcified the use of race in order to produce certain social, economic and political benefits;

    2) lower the standards in schools – just as past policies didn’t offer my ancestors access to education, standard, substandard, high standard – period – as little as 40 years ago;

    3) stigmatize blacks (in the eyes of whites) as people who need help – just as the past disriminatory policies validated whites as people who were self-serving and very much in need of maintaining power and control over their new found land;

    4) create socially mandated dishonesty in the use of normalized tests and melinin diverstiy – just as past policies created social and racial mandated privileges (back then, education was a privilege) that exlusivley benefited the majority population;

    5) change the nature of education such that social engineering, and not knowledge, becomes its primary purpose – just as past policies and practices enacted social engineering in which the native peoples of a territory were neglected and diminished to a state of subservience, and well knowlege became the primarly purpose for maintaining a dominant white majority in power.

    “All of these effects will utlimately hurt everyone, including, perhaps especially, those who are meant to benefit from AA.” – I don’t see the effects of past discriminatory practices presently hurting the majority population, do they?

    “It is no longer obvious why AA is necessary.” – heh, you’re right; being raised by non-educated, field workers, who were paid 50 cents an hour by a group of white farmers as early as 1940 has no effect whatsoever on a child’s upbringing, huh? It’s all a clean slate from the start…

    “Are universities really so ingrained with racism that they need government regulations to be reformed?” – then how does one explain the current social, economic, and political inequities if not as being a direct product of past discrimination? And how can the majority, granted the benefits yielded from similar discriminatory practices, suddenly reject the same notion as a means to help the minority population? Hey, we all know it worked for the majority population, why wouldn’t it work for the rest? Is a scholarship here, and a program there too much to ask for? Or will you frown upon those who benefitted from them? The hypocrisy…

  10. Stephen March 2, 2005 at 4:33 pm | | Reply

    The phony history of the past presented endlessly by supporters of racial and sexual quotas if a farce.

    I know this is like talking to a brick wall. The creation of a large scale middle class is almost entirely an invention of the U.S. in the past 150 years. Before that, just about everybody was destitute and worked at miserable jobs. coxeyarmy is once again presenting us with this phony history of a large, rich and privileged class. It is a lie.

    There is no great past of discrimination. This phony history, made up by coxeyarmy, Cobra, etc., is just the usual argument for revenge for imagined wrongs.

    Everything you said was based on a phony history, coxeyarmy. And, you’ve culled that history carefully to build your straw man argument.

    You want revenge. Everybody wants revenge. And everybody is very skilled at re-writing history so that they alone are victimized and entitled to revenge.

    I’m fed up with the racial avengers. A pox of them all. They are all wrong. They are suffering from a moral problem. The desire for revenge, which is really all these folks have to offer, is something to talk about with your parish priest or your minister. It’s a sin.

  11. Richard Nieporent March 2, 2005 at 5:07 pm | | Reply

    Coxeyarmy, if you would like to be exposed to a different point of view on race you should read Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America, by John McWhorter, a Berkeley linguistics professor. The book looks at why so many African-Americans continue to define themselves by race and examines what he calls the cult of Victimology, Separatism, and Anti-Intellectualism on America

  12. Dom March 2, 2005 at 5:40 pm | | Reply

    The injustices practiced against blacks is certainly not a lie, and although I don’t want to speak for John, I’ll state the obvious — it is wrong of Stephen to act like that is a point made on this blog.

    “I don’t see the effects of past discriminatory practices presently hurting the majority population…” It certainly did hurt. And defenders of AA always claim it hurt. This is the “diversity helps white people argument”.

    The overriding question is this: Given that some blacks (especially black males) do not show the same economic mobility that other groups show (including recent immigrants from Africa and the Carribean), how can we best help them — since this is what everyone wants. In free markets, black achievement has been mind-boggling. Black males so dominate in sports and entertainment, that the stereotype of a black athlete is almost insulting. In less free markets, when blacks are not judged on skills and talents, the achievement is dampened. It already seems possible that AA has lowered the number of black lawyers.

    The idea of proportional representation is wrong-headed. We don’t ask for proportional representation among countries. We don’t expect every country to produce a proportional number of widgets and fruits and shoes and computers. Wealth is increased when we allow the Japanese to specialize in auto manufacturing, the British in Biotechnology, etc. They happen to be good at that. Countries that pursue a policy of self-subsistence (Gandhi’s India, Castro’s Cuba) invariably spiral download into abysmal poverty. For much the same reason, AA is contributing to the poverty of minorities. It removes them and others from their natural talents, and shoe-horns them where they are least likely to succeed.

    Dom

  13. Cobra March 2, 2005 at 7:17 pm | | Reply

    Coxeyarmy,

    I wholeheartedly welcome your comments to “Discriminations.” I found your last post to be nothing short of OUTSTANDING. Don’t ever be discouraged by those who resort to ad hominems to refute the irrefutable truths about African American experience. Always remember that there are people out here who stand with you.

    Dom writes:

    >>>In free markets, black achievement has been mind-boggling. Black males so dominate in sports and entertainment, that the stereotype of a black athlete is almost insulting. In less free markets, when blacks are not judged on skills and talents, the achievement is dampened. It already seems possible that AA has lowered the number of black lawyers.”

    That’s not quite accurate. Black males “dominate” in some PERFORMANCE (on field & on stage) aspects of certain sports and certain entertainment genres. The OWNERSHIP and MANAGEMENT (off field & off stage) mirror the results of the rest of society. Your final sentence about lawyers implies that there are less African American lawyers in 2005 than in 1965, before Affirmative Action. Can you provide research that supports a statement like that?

    >>>Wealth is increased when WE ALLOW the Japanese to specialize in auto manufacturing, the British in Biotechnology, etc. They happen to be good at that. Countries that pursue a policy of self-subsistence (Gandhi’s India, Castro’s Cuba) invariably spiral download into abysmal poverty. ”

    First of all, some definitions are in order. Exactly who is “we”, and what power does this group wield over foreign manufacturing, besides trade and tarrifs? Given our trade deficits with China, our treasury bonds in Japan, and the outsourcing of US labor to Bangalore, I could seriously ask you if “we” (defined as America) aren’t being “allowed” to specialize in the service industry, since our manufacturing strength as a nation is going the way of the dinosaur.

    >>>For much the same reason, AA is contributing to the poverty of minorities. It removes them and others from their NATURAL TALENTS, and shoe-horns them where they are least likely to succeed.”

    Could you please elaborate on what my “natural talents” are as a minority?

    John writes:

    >>>In a perfect world, there would be many areas of life where representation of various races/ethnic groups would be nowhere near proportional, just as is true in our imperfect world in those places where “under-” or “over-” representation is not the result of discrimination.”

    In a perfect world, there would be no racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, nepotism, cronyism, religious intolerance or any other factor that inspires certain discriminations in the first place. It’s a moot argument.

    –Cobra

  14. Stephen March 2, 2005 at 8:29 pm | | Reply

    The name Cobra connotes attack and racial revenge. I keep asking you to explain why you use this metaphor for revenge and attack.

    Cobra, your desire for revenge is a moral failing.

    I could list the attacks my family has suffered from blacks, the injustices my family has suffered as the result of its lot of life, but I’m not going to. I ignore you when you do. I encourage others who read this to ignore your whining and refuse to respond to it.

    The notion that blacks have suffered in any way worse than my family or my national group is gross moral arrogance. I reject it totally. Cobra, I’m not making an ad hominem attack on you. I’m asking you to be a moral human.

    The moral arrogance of assuming that your hurts are more important than others is, and I repeat, a sin.

  15. John Rosenberg March 2, 2005 at 10:13 pm | | Reply

    However, if the same laws (and mindset) that created educational barriers for minorities, yet, simulatenously expanded opportunities to the majority population – would not the reverse work now for the minority population? If not for the historical ubiquitous acts of racial discrimation, the nature of this conversation would be rendered hypothetical.

    If you’re asking whether discrimination benefits those who discriminate and burdens those who are its victims, the answer of course is yes. So what? Mussolini got the trains to run on time. Do you believe discrimination based on race is wrong, or only discrimination against blacks? Of course, if there’s nothing wrong in principle with racial discrimination, there’s nothing wrong in principle with discriminating against blacks. Battles over discrimination then are simply a matter of whose ox is being gored, and the dominant, stronger group will always win. That’s why minorities are better served by principled arguments, and why it has been foolish for minorities to sacrifice the principle of colorblind non-discrmination for the limited and short-term gains of being arbitrarily placed at the front of the line for what, in historical perspective, is only a few places in some colleges and some preferential hiringl.

    Also…..AA will:

    “Calcify the use of race in society in a way that will never change” – just as past policies created by the majority population calcified the use of race in order to produce certain social, economic and political benefits

    Yes, discrimination did do that, until it was rejected by a majority on the basis of appeals, over a long period of time, to the core value that people should be treated without regard to their race, creed, or color.

    2) lower the standards in schools – just as past policies didn’t offer my ancestors access to education, standard, substandard, high standard – period – as little as 40 years ago;

    Past discrimination did indeed do that, and it was wrong. And it would be wrong to imitate those policies now. Your ancestors, who were treated unfairly, cannot be made whole by treating people unfairly now who were not responsible for those past policies.

    3) stigmatize blacks (in the eyes of whites) as people who need help – just as the past disriminatory policies validated whites as people who were self-serving and very much in need of maintaining power and control over their new found land;

    Ditto. Discrimination was wrong. Revenge-based discrimination does nothing to correct that wrong, and duplicates what was wrong about it.

    4) create socially mandated dishonesty in the use of normalized tests and melinin diverstiy – just as past policies created social and racial mandated privileges (back then, education was a privilege) that exlusivley benefited the majority population;

    This is now getting repetitive. What you’re really demanding here is reparations, for which a stronger argument can be made than can be made for racial preferences.

    5) change the nature of education such that social engineering, and not knowledge, becomes its primary purpose – just as past policies and practices enacted social engineering in which the native peoples of a territory were neglected and diminished to a state of subservience, and well knowlege became the primarly purpose for maintaining a dominant white majority in power.

    This is a bit ambiguous, but insofar as I understand what you’re saying here (that’s not something you’ve already said several times) it’s overstated. There were, and are, many problems with American education, but I think it’s fanciful to say that its primary purpose (of all of it?) has been to maintain white supremacy.

    “All of these effects will utlimately hurt everyone, including, perhaps especially, those who are meant to benefit from AA.” – I don’t see the effects of past discriminatory practices presently hurting the majority population, do they?

    Well, past discrimination hurts everyone in the present so long as it has any lasting effects.

    “It is no longer obvious why AA is necessary.” – heh, you’re right; being raised by non-educated, field workers, who were paid 50 cents an hour by a group of white farmers as early as 1940 has no effect whatsoever on a child’s upbringing, huh? It’s all a clean slate from the start…

    Of course it has an effect, but it’s a problem for which racial preferences are not the cure. Aid to children in low income families is relevant to this problem; preferential admission to Harvard isn’t.

    …And how can the majority, granted the benefits yielded from similar discriminatory practices, suddenly reject the same notion as a means to help the minority population?

    Those means should be rejected because they are wrong. I really don’t think you want to persuade a majority of people whom you regard as undeservedly enriched racists that there really is nothing wrong with discrimination after all, so long as it benefits the members of the group you’re in.

  16. Cobra March 2, 2005 at 11:58 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>I really don’t think you want to persuade a majority of people whom you regard as undeservedly enriched racists that there really is nothing wrong with discrimination after all, so long as it benefits the members of the group you’re in.”

    Would not eliminating Affirmative Action benefit “undeservedly enriched racists?” What would be the rationale for an underrepresented minority to actively support the further enrichment of “undeservedly enriched racists” by weakening their own position?

    >>>Of course it has an effect, but it’s a problem for which racial preferences are not the cure. Aid to children in low income families is relevant to this problem; preferential admission to Harvard isn’t.”

    Am I to take it that you’re ENDORSING government social programs for low income families? That’s red-meat LBJ type stuff, John. It’s refreshing to hear that coming from a person who’s expressed such arch-conservative views.

    >>>That’s why minorities are better served by principled arguments, and why it has been foolish for minorities to sacrifice the principle of colorblind non-discrmination for the limited and short-term gains of being arbitrarily placed at the front of the line for what, in historical perspective, is only a few places in some colleges and some preferential hiring.”

    How is a college education a “short-term gain?” Higher degrees are the gateway to higher salaries, higher social status and higher positions of power to change American society. The more educated a population, the less likely it will be impoverished and disenfranchised. There were REASONS why southern white legislators in the 19 Century used “slave codes” to make it illegal to teach blacks to read. Knowledge is power. The roots of this virulence began in the minds of the Founding Fathers, like ol’ Tommy Jefferson:

    >>>In his writings, Jefferson describes his vision of the common school:

  17. Anonymous March 3, 2005 at 1:30 am | | Reply

    “Do you believe discrimination based on race is wrong, or only discrimination against blacks?” – excuse me partner, but I’m no African African American and I never implied such a claim. Second, who’s referring to discrimination solely against blacks? What about Native Americans? Asian Americans? Latin Americans?

    History is filled with instances of such…

    “Yes, discrimination did do that, until it was rejected by a majority on the basis of appeals, over a long period of time, to the core value that people should be treated without regard to their race, creed, or color.” – actually, I think it’s a much more simpler than that – actually quite elementary and practical – as the rest of the world long considered and believed that the United States was the beacon of freedom and liberty, yet came face to face with live, vivid images and pictures of inhumane discriiminatory practices taking place in the 60’s through the advent of the television and news reporting, the United was undeniably abashed – along came the Civil Rights Movement – putting money where its mouth is.

    “Past discrimination did indeed do that, and it was wrong. And it would be wrong to imitate those policies now. Your ancestors, who were treated unfairly, cannot be made whole by treating people unfairly now who were not responsible for those past policies.” So, I’m assuming you belong to the group of folks who believe that history has no place in the current social strata of inequality and thus, contend that AA, EEO, etc., have no place in public policy, huh? So, in turn, what is your solution to the current inequalities that mysteriously appear before us? Maintain the status quo? Social welfare?

    “Ditto. Discrimination was wrong. Revenge-based discrimination does nothing to correct that wrong, and duplicates what was wrong about it.” Huh, interesting. Yet, please refer to the Declaration of Independence. Are the injustices that these white folks endured by another group of white people(causing them to dissolve and pick up a new hobby – sailing across the Atlantic) similar to those that were IN TURN, were imposed on another people? It’s all relative and if so, how come not now?

    “This is now getting repetitive. What you’re really demanding here is reparations, for which a stronger argument can be made than can be made for racial preferences.” Yeah, the redunancy was indeed intentional; can you please distinguish between what you consider proper and just repirations and racial prefernces? Because from what I understand, having the majority of a population of a given state contribute monies through the form of taxation that will in turn, assist low-income regions (where minorities make up the majority)is quite an unpopular argument – it’s called social welfare and if that’s bad too, then what’s resonable?

    “but I think it’s fanciful to say that its primary purpose (of all of it?) has been to maintain white supremacy” -can you think of another purpose? I’m quite aware of other – bogus – justifications (refer you to Edwin Black’s War Against the Weak). But please, englighten me, I’m sure you can provide me with some.

    “Of course it has an effect, but it’s a problem for which racial preferences are not the cure. Aid to children in low income families is relevant to this problem; preferential admission to Harvard isn’t.” we’re not talking about Harvard, we’re talking about the entire educational system and all the inequities that remain so much a part of its fiber. Yet, nothing seems to satisfy proponents of Affirmative Action – what solution do they offer? We’ve attacked the welfare system, now AA, what’s next – Southwestern Airlines Rapid Rewards?

    Ultimately, there’s no use in quibbling about AA. The reality of it all we cannot escape – the coming White minority. It’s inevitable. If we do not address the problem of educational inequality and how the growing minority populations is heading towards an unequipped, unlearned, uneducated, unprepared majority, we’re in for a hell of a ride. It’s a crisis. Like I said John, I don’t think that a scholarship here, and program there do more harm than good. And one more thing, I’m not vengeful or have ever been – I’m just being practical.

  18. Sandy P March 3, 2005 at 2:34 am | | Reply

    They’ve been riding that hobby horse for 30 years now and STILL can’t get it done.

    And Colorado chose a white boy over more Indian-looking candidates who even if he didn’t lie, had more Indian blood than he did.

    Has anyone ever really addressed that?

  19. Stephen March 3, 2005 at 8:00 am | | Reply

    Cobra’s insistence that whites are an undifferentiated mass is racism incarnate.

    What in the hell is my relationship to Thomas Jefferson? My family didn’t even arrive in the U.S. until 1880, and it arrived in “coffin ships,” so named because so many of the passengers died en route. How exactly did I become heir to whatever sins Jefferson committed? Just because I’m white?

    Cobra is quick to call others racist. His words are patently and obviously racist, right down to the endless calls for racial revenge.

    Every religion and philosophical system calls on us to forgive the sins of the past. Dwelling endlessly on the sins of the past and brooding over revenge is evil.

    Cobra, you’ve got a spiritual problem to attend to. If you wanted to name the spiritual problem that lands so many black men in prison, this obsession with racial revenge would be at the top of my list.

  20. Eric March 3, 2005 at 9:19 am | | Reply

    Coxeyarmy-

    I’m having a tough time following your reasoning. But, as far as I can tell, the main thrust of your passion centers around the perceived inequality (exactly what, you have yet to enumerate) that exists in modern society. You also assert that this inequality is the direct result of past descrimination. Please let me know if this interpretation is incorrect.

    To which, I ask this question: you and I take a test. If I do better than you on the test, is it a result of a difference in our abilities, or because of present or the lurking remnants of past discrimination? Is everyone supposed to be equal (as would be implied by a belief that you and I should have scored the exact same on the test), or just judged by fair and equal standards?

    I also would like to know why you think this (as yet undefined) inequality exists in society for some people, while others have faced the same or similar obstacles and succeeded their wildest hopes and dreams. Millions of people have flooded into this country from around the world, and faced overt discrimination (“Irish Need Not Apply”, “Closed to Catholics”, explicit caps on the number of Jews admitted to Ivy League schools, etc, etc, etc). Not to mention someone such as the Secretary of State, who was the daughter of those people paid forty cents a day to work someone elses farm. She seems to be doing just fine.

    To blame the perceived iniquities SOLELY on discrimination, racism, elitism, or some other external factor is to imply that those who succeeded did so by blind luck, or with consent of the mythic “ruling class”, without regard to the hardwork it took for them to succeed.

    Is it possible, just possible, that there were cultural, genetic (individual, not group) or other environmental factors that contributed slightly to any given individual’s poor performance?

    Or is every person on this earth produced from an assembly line, with the same skills and abilities, so any lack of achievement MUST be the result of discrimination, past or present? If that’s the case, I must have one heck of a law suit against David Stern.

  21. coxeyarmy March 3, 2005 at 10:16 am | | Reply

    My argument lies in that current inequality – not all, but a substantial portion that takes place today – exists because of the systematic discriminatory practices that took place in the past. Change takes time I know – there are some (as this forum has proved) who negate and deny that past discrimination ever existed. We must accept it’s reality and devise ways to undo its effects. My question, however, remains – how?

    “I also would like to know why you think this (as yet undefined) inequality exists in society for some people, while others have faced the same or similar obstacles and succeeded their wildest hopes and dreams.” Eric, when you have 3.7 Latinos representing the overall faculty composition, when you have less than 3 percent (2.7) Hispanics representation at the SES civil service level, when inequalities exist in health care, education, etc. Should we continue to perceive this as being merely coincidental?

    “Or is every person on this earth produced from an assembly line, with the same skills and abilities, so any lack of achievement MUST be the result of discrimination, past or present?” No, it’s when statistics tell you that trends amongst certain groups of people experience similar situations – again, coincidental? Lack of achievement is one thing, lack of opportunity to achieve is another.

    If you want to fuss about AA and the such, go ahead – if you think it puts white America at a disadvantage, enough. If you think reverse discrimination is unjust, okay. Folks, we’re heading into a minority-majority nation status. Demographics are changing; thus, my concern remains, what are going to do when the majority of this country’s population is also the least educated, the least represented, etc.? Will we still maintain global competitive advantage? And what solutions do we have to offer?Quibbling about whether or not discrimination exists or existed? Resort to prayer as Stephen suggests?

  22. Stephen March 3, 2005 at 10:37 am | | Reply

    coxeyarmy,

    The solution is for people to take care of themselves.

    People are not as weak and helpless as you’ve pictured them. Why do you want to believe this?

    I didn’t suggest that prayer is the answer to the dilemmas you’ve stated, although it would probably help.

    This focus on discrimination is counter productive. It produces weaklings and excuse-mongers. You are completely on the wrong track.

    The best encouragement we can give other people is to be strong, to be responsible, to work hard and to refuse to accept their excuses for failure.

  23. Eric March 3, 2005 at 10:46 am | | Reply

    Coxeyarmy-

    Two things:

    1) I noticed that you responded without really responding. I am not asserting, as some might, that discrimination never existed. In fact, my arguement centers around the fact that people of all stripes have succeeded in spite of that discrimination. I’m still trying to figure out why you ascribe the current inequality exclusively to discrimination (discriminaiton, by the way, which is lower today in this country than it has ever been at any point in human history), and don’t allow for a confluence of envirtonmental, culturual and genetic factors. Bill Cosby (among others), seems to think it’s not a product of discrimination, but of culture. Why do you think he’s wrong? And if it is because of discrimination, why is the remedy for the ills of discrimination more discrimination?

    Just answer my original, very straight forward question: if you and I perform differently on a test, is it because you and I are different or is because discrimination effected the results?

    2) I don’t know whether your statistics about Latino representation are correct, but, for arguements sake, I’ll accept them as such.

    a) Why do they matter?

    b) Do you know the percentage of the Latino population that is not a recent immigrant or first generation American? If not, do you think that the total number of 2nd generation and beyond Latino’s is closer to the statistics you quoted, or the overall population of Latino’s in the country? Given that Latino’s represent a pretty sizeable chunk of the country’s immigrants, I’d guess the it’s somewhere in the middle; but again, I don’t know. Do you think people who are recent immigrants, speak little to no English, and came here to escape the poverty and violence of their native country while providing a better life for themselves and their families should be highly represented in those two populations?

    c) Who was discriminating against Miguel Estrada when they did not allow him to join the ranks of the SES/political appointees?

    P.S. – Since I am a grammar dork, I would like to amend two sections of my previous post.

    1) Condi Rice IS the daughter of sharecropers, not WAS

    2) Many people succeeded BEYOND their wildest hopes and dream.

  24. coxeyarmy March 3, 2005 at 10:52 am | | Reply

    “The best encouragement we can give other people is to be strong, to be responsible, to work hard and to refuse to accept their excuses for failure.” Damn, if this country’s – the world’s superpower – best offer is encouragement, we’re in pretty bad shape. Let’s continue down this slippery slope and consider this what Samuel Johnson referred to as a second marriage: “a second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.” Folks, without tangible solutions, hope is all we’ve got.

  25. Stephen March 3, 2005 at 11:07 am | | Reply

    I did offer a solution: individual responsibility.

    You have offered dependency and weakness.

    I ask you: Why do you believe that people are this weak?

    It is not the job of government to solve people’s problems for them. Unless you want to create a society of slaves.

    And, individual responsibility has worked great. This approach is what made the U.S. into a great superpower: giving freedom to people to make the best of their own lives through hard work and initiative. This is why we are so rich. The proof is in the pudding.

  26. coxeyarmy March 3, 2005 at 11:36 am | | Reply

    ” if you and I perform differently on a test, is it because you and I are different or is because discrimination effected the results?” Eric, civilization didn’t start after the Civil Rights Act – the effects of discrimination are still lingering today. Do you suppose that because the majority of a given population was systematically denied the right to an education, right to vote, etc., that it has no bearing whatsoever on subsequent generations? We’re talking 1950’s here. Are you contending that education has no effect on childrearing and the socialization effects a child experiences because of it? If formal education puts people at a competitive advantage as far as economic mobility is concerned, why not childrearing handicapped by unnedcated, unsavy consumers?

    “to think it’s not a product of discrimination, but of culture.” – a culture recreated within horrific circustances. These people were robbed of their indigenous identity, traditions, etc., and replaced by a subservient, servile status and existence imposed upon them against their will.

    “why is the remedy for the ills of discrimination more discrimination?” – again, is a diversity program or a damn $1,000 scholarship is an overt form of oppression and discrimination, actually comperable to oppression, discrimination, etc. history so clearly evidences?

    “if you and I perform differently on a test, is it because you and I are different or is because discrimination effected the results?” – well, that’s truly hypothetical. But again, are we supposed to ignore the effects of discrimination and its impact on one’s upbringing? is the fact that 87% of the faculty composition is white effected by mere coincidence or because exclusive opportunities were granted to that population?

    Why do such statistics matter? Again, because Latinos are the fastest growing population, are projected to become the majority population in Texas and yet, little is being to

    “Given that Latino’s represent a pretty sizeable chunk of the country’s immigrants” – uh, we’re all immigrants and we must not forget that.

    “Do you think people who are recent immigrants….came here to escape the poverty and violence of their native country while providing a better life for themselves and their families” – hmmm, weren’t similar justifications given by uh, a particular group of people, 3 centuries ago for leaving their native land? The hypocrisy….but we should frown upon those who justify it today to the extent that we refer to them as “aliens”.

    “Who was discriminating against Miguel Estrada when they did not allow him to join the ranks of the SES/political appointees?” SES/political appointees are two different categories; yet, Estrada was given a confirmation hearing for not providing the judiciary committee certain information, shouldn’t we not know as much as possible about who the hell serves on our courts? Better yet, what’s the point?

    And yet, no one’s been able to answer my question about the shifting demographics. I guess we can continue this AA debate while China, India, etc. continue to make strides in education, productivity, etc.

  27. Andrew P. Connors March 3, 2005 at 12:13 pm | | Reply

    Random elements to add to this debate:

    What constitutes “unfair” advantage? As I understand it, because some blacks are descended from slaves, and some whites are descended from slave owners, and of course on top of that in general government enforced laws which acted to the detriment of blacks and to the benefit of whites, then today blacks are behind in “the race” and they need to be allowed to move with parity of their white competitors.

    I don’t outright reject this line of argumentation. What I would object to is (1) the idea that all blacks suffer from this disadvantage, (2) that all whites gained from this, and (3) that other factors of “privilege” are moot.

    So as I understand it today, I, as a white from a middle to eventual upperclass background was given advantage over someone from the ghetto, most probably black, because I got to go to better schools (in truth, for me a mixed bag), while the black person in the ghetto went to a horrible school, had a horrible family life, was at an early age introduced to crime, etc. Fair enough.

    If in this respect I had a head start, then artificially boosting the black person to a school which they are by any standard unqualified for, and which they are more likely to fail out, or if they stay in, are likely to get a not-to-valuable degree (aka black studies, sociology, feminist studies, etc.) The solution, it would seem, lies in fixing the failing environment, and in the meantime allowing ability to still reign to put the student in a place he or she is most likely to succeed.

    Now, what of the white ghetto student? Assume the same circumstances as the black ghetto student – why is it the black student gets a leg up (such people, while I admit don’t exist in quite as great of numbers, still exist.) Of even greater numbers are white rural students living in poverty too. What of them?

    And how exactly can we calculate the amount of “privilege” any one person has over any other? The blatant subjectivity of this standard is enough to make AA a bad policy.

    Back to me. At the point I applied to college, I would consider the neighborhood I lived in to be upperclass. Prior to that, however, I lived on military bases most of my life, and relative to what my family had in my late teen years, we had very little. In truth, my dad saved and saved a very long time so that he could put us in the position he did in the last three years of my life before college. Now what does that mean exactly? Well what I’m driving at is…how do we define privilege? Was I privileged because my dad made me do something educational everyday, whereas the black student that didn’t happen? What about for the black students that it did? And why ought the government judge private family relationship and act as an equilizer? If it’s unfair that I was pushed while another wasn’t, then that would seem to rationalize the government parenting all children.

    And what of other privilege? A person might look at the high school I graduated from as say “that’s a nice school”, and fair enough, it is. But what of the other schools? What of the school I went to in Twentynine Palms, CA (a dump of a town), infested by gangs and in one of the worst public school districts in America (and it was extremely rural at that.)

    And what of other advantage? What of students whose parents, while they may not have a lot, give their children everything. But then what of students whose parents have a lot but believe that their child should earn their own way. And what if the first is black, and the latter white?

    What of white lineage that was discriminated against? I’m Irish (note my last name.) My dad and mom were both the first in their families to graduate from college. This puts me ahead of some black students, but also in parity with many others, and even behind some if this is a measure of “privilege.”

    And what of blacks from rich backgrounds. It’s a sad sight that many black students at UVa are very obviously well-off. And they’re the same ones that proscribe to the “head start in the race” philosophy. Why do they need a bonus? Everything about them goes against the argument behind AA. And then there’s the other latent problem, that I’ll simply allude to here…what of the entitlement these folks are taught? It’s never a perogative that at some point their lineage ought to pull up to the same standards; instead, they are implicitly taught that they deserve to be here just because, and all the while the value of hard work is ignored.

    Now with all that said, I admit that I’ve not cited stats, etc…but so what? This is what I’ve seen with my own eyes! Tell me how AA rectifies these things, because otherwise, it seems to be the wrong solution to the problem.

  28. Eric March 3, 2005 at 12:24 pm | | Reply

    Coxeyarmy-

    You seem to be practicing a bit of spaghetti debate: just throw a bunch of arguements out there and see what sticks.

    However, I will take up the guantlet:

    1) “Do you suppose that because the majority of a given population was systematically denied the right to an education, right to vote, etc., that it has no bearing whatsoever on subsequent generations?”

    You have yet to reconcile the fundamental flaw in that reasoning: if this discrmination was so debilitating, how is it that so many people were and are able to succeed in spite of it? And, how is it that so many people were able to succeed in a climate that was even more hostile to them than it is today?

    2) “a culture recreated within horrific circustances. These people were robbed of their indigenous identity, traditions, etc., and replaced by a subservient, servile status and existence imposed upon them against their will.”

    I assume you are referring exclusively to the direct decendants of African slaves (not the only people to be enslaved in our country’s history and not the only constituents of the modern day black population). I’m not going to generalize by saying that all blacks think or act a certain way, as you seem to. But, I will ask you this: those individuals who were not placed in a subservient, servile status against thier will, is their culture and, more importantly, standard of living significantly better than that of all but a few people in America? Would people eeking out the megerest of livings want to return to Africa, where the threat of genocide, famine, civil war and disease make even getting by in day to day life nearly impossible?

    And before you use the European Colonialism defense on me, please remember that the institution of African slavery was created by Africans. It’s not like the European’s landed in Africa and suddenly said “these people will make excellent slaves.”

    3) “is a diversity program or a damn $1,000 scholarship is an overt form of oppression and discrimination, actually comperable to oppression, discrimination, etc. history so clearly evidences?”

    It’s not the negative results of the current discrimination per se, but rather the slippery slope that the principled use of discrimination leads to. Once you endorse the use of discrimination for any purpose, where does it end? Who decides what group benefits, and what group is harmed by discrimination? Who is the arbiter that decides enough is enough? The majority? The majority is what wrought the earlier forms of discrimination that had such a negative effect. The courts? The courts gave us Plessy, Dred Scott, etc. and are as politicized as ever today. Enlightened intellectuals? Who are these individuals? How are they identified?

    Do you see what a horrible Pandora’s Box this opens?

    4) “is the fact that 87% of the faculty composition is white effected by mere coincidence or because exclusive opportunities were granted to that population?”

    This is perhaps your most interesting arguement. What does the teacher’s race/ethnicity/gender have to do with their ability to teach? If your implicaiton is that white faculty cannot teach minority students, do you endorse the flip side of that reasoning, that minority faculty cannot teach white students? If not, why not? Was Brown v BoE actually determental to the educational development of blacks, by forcing them to learn from white teachers?

    5) “Again, because Latinos are the fastest growing population, are projected to become the majority population in Texas and yet, little is being to…”

    You didn’t publish a complete response, but I doubt you were answering my implied question, which I will now make explicit: Why does the superficial make-up of these positions matter? Shouldn’t these positions be filled with the most qualified candidates, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc? Why do you assume that the members of those populations achieved their status by some means other than hardwork and being the most qualified?

    Alternatively, if Asians, or people from India, or even blacks are “over-represented” in these populations, would you endorse the reduction in their numbers?

    6) “we’re all immigrants and we must not forget that”

    I was referring to new immigrants, i.e. those that enter the country each year. And, we’re all Americans. That’s the only adjective we should need

    7) “weren’t similar justifications given by uh, a particular group of people, 3 centuries ago for leaving their native land?”

    Not really sure if this arguement is relevant. Everyone comes to this country looking for a better opportunity. My statement merely suggested that, for the most part, new immigrants don’t have the education, training, (use of serial comma in a nod to John) or understanding of government and culture.

    I don’t want the snow white guy in the supply room who can’t understand what I’m asking for when I say I need a yellow legal pad in a position of power or authority either. It has nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with his knowledge, skills and ability.

    8) “SES/political appointees are two different categories; yet, Estrada was given a confirmation hearing for not providing the judiciary committee certain information, shouldn’t we not know as much as possible about who the hell serves on our courts? Better yet, what’s the point?:

    a) Not all SES’s are political appointees, but a good deal of them are.

    b) So what you’re saying is that Estrada wasn’t discriminated against, he was denied the position because the Judiciary Committee felt that he lacked the qualifications of a good Attorney General. So, it’s possible for a minority to be denied a position for a reason other than their race? That’s counter to basically every arguement you have made. That’s the point.

    I also don’t know what your question about shifting demographics was, so you’ll have to repost it. But I don’t know how shifting demographics is an excuse for discrimination.

  29. John Rosenberg March 3, 2005 at 1:22 pm | | Reply

    Administrative Request: These entries are becoming (no, they’ve become) too verbose for my tastes. I’m glad everyone has a lot to say, but I’d appreciate it if all would try to be, if not brief (which would be best), at least briefer. It also would be a good idea to try to keep the comments more or less related to the original post, and not take off on long flights of controversy responding to other comments. I’m glad that people continue to read this blog, and comment, who disagree with the point of view generally expressed here, and I encourage you to remain and to keep commenting — if for no other reason, as I’ve said before, that I’m confident that the dissenting views presented in comments here serve to persuade any innocent, undecided souls who happen to drop by that the arguments in favor of racial preferences simply are not very convincing.

    That said, it still seems to me that some of the things we wind up debating aren’t worth the bandwidth. For example, the core of the argument in coxey…’s original comment that launched this long thread boils down to this — discrimination worked for whites, so why shouldn’t we use it to help blacks?

    But why stop with half-hearted and half-way measures. Yes, discrimination did work to benefit whites and burden blacks, but its efficiency in that regard was as nothing compared to slavery. If our goal is to take away the ill-gotten gains whites have derived (as well, of course, as the inevitably collateral damage of taking away legitimately gotten gains as well) and give them to black, racial preferences are a very poor way of doing so. Slavery would be much more efficient, as it was in the past.

    This, of course, is a silly argument (at least to those who believe that principles preclude some behavior; I’m not sure it’s so silly to those who reject principles that apply without regard to color), and I do not want to debate it here, especially since we’ve just spent too much time on a debate that’s not fundamentally different.

  30. coxeyarmy March 3, 2005 at 1:53 pm | | Reply

    Mr. Speaker, as requested, I yield the balance of my time. See ya around.

  31. superdestroyer March 3, 2005 at 8:08 pm | | Reply

    coxeyarmy is as wrong as possible. The last time I was at the book store I did not see any signs restricting the purchases of blacks but blacks buy fewer books per capita in the US than whites. The last time I was at the news stand, I was no signs restricting the purchases of minorities yet, blacks are about 15% more likely to read a newspaper than any minority groups. I can go on about trips to museums, historical sights, musicals, operas, etc.

    Yet, peole like coxeyarmy anc cobra want to penalize whites for spending their time educating their children instead of doing other activities with them.

  32. Cobra March 4, 2005 at 8:11 am | | Reply

    Eric writes:

    >>>Would people eeking out the megerest of livings want to return to Africa, where the threat of genocide, famine, civil war and disease make even getting by in day to day life nearly impossible?

    I think that is one of the prevailing attitudes that we who support Affirmative Action get the most riled up about. Despite all the UP TO DATE statistics and research about the obstacles still present for minorities in America, we are asked to “settle for less” or “be grateful because it’s worse elsewhere.” Those aren’t adequate answers to injustice in my opinion.

    –Cobra

  33. Scott March 4, 2005 at 12:08 pm | | Reply

    Real quick — this thread is a great example of why I come to this site. Reasoned, passionate, (mostly) intelligent arguments about a very important subject. Hope you stick around, Coxeyarmy. You’re a welcome addition to the views that are mostly limited to actus and cobra.

    Cobra, you asked earlier (forgive the paraphrase) if African Americans and other underrepresented minorities should settle for principle, while the ruling majority maintains its status quo unabated. Yes, I think minorities should ‘settle’ for this principle. It’s the same one I teach my own children; that espoused by MLK and any number of others (and yes, I know the Founders said it but didn’t mean it); even by you, although you want to wait until this indeterminate future point when every last vestige of racism and privilege has been removed from society.

    As for the ruling majority (is this me??? — I don’t rule anybody) maintaining its status quo, this statement denies the tremendous gains made by American minorities. And immigrants of color arrive with not just the ‘problem’ of pigment, but cultural and language differences as well. But if they work hard and, most importantly, attain higher education, they can succeed. Like everybody else. It’s not necessary to step on my children to make your way up the ladder.

  34. coxeyarmy March 4, 2005 at 2:39 pm | | Reply

    Thanks, Scott.

    “But if they work hard and, most importantly, attain higher education, they can succeed.”

    Is this really the crux of the problem here? Statistics have shown that by increasing

  35. superdestroyer March 4, 2005 at 8:58 pm | | Reply

    coxeyarmy

    I failed to see your argument. How does the kid who is the 11th percentile at Plano East High School make lower grades at UT than the kid who finished in the top ten percent at Dallas Carter? If the Plano East student in the above example had attended Dallas Carter he would have easily finished in the top ten percent.

    Also, the kid who is finishing in the Top Ten at Dallas Carter is much less likely to make advanced math, science, literature, or a foreign language than the kid who finished out of the to ten at Plano East. How does the Dallas Carter reparation and hard work cause him to produce higher grades at UT.

    If you look at the UT study who are quoting, the first thing you should notice is how black and hispanic student are avoiding hard majors and thus hard classes. Also, not all of those out of the top ten are the white kids from the suburban high school. UT did not bother to separate out athletes and musicians from the engineering majors who were not in the top ten percent.

  36. Cobra March 4, 2005 at 10:36 pm | | Reply

    Superdestroyer writes:

    >>>I failed to see your argument. How does the kid who is the 11th percentile at Plano East High School make lower grades at UT than the kid who finished in the top ten percent at Dallas Carter? If the Plano East student in the above example had attended Dallas Carter he would have easily finished in the top ten percent.”

    That’s the crux of Coxeyarmy’s point. Affirmative Action was eliminated in Texas higher education, and replaced with a plan that takes the top 10% . Now as you clearly note, this course of action doesn’t result in “fairness”. If anything, the example you provided is perfect (by the way, I loved “Friday Night Lights”, too.) In fact, this rule might actually discriminate against white students in the 11th percentile, especially in highly competitive schools. My suburban senior high school class had 377 students when I graduated,(three valedictorians) so the kid who was ranked 38th, probably had a solid 3.7 with decent SATs. By the Texas rule, he or she would get the shaft, while a kid ranked 76th with a 3.1 at Paterson-Eastside High School(remember “Lean On Me”-Joe Clark?) gets the green light. So you can see, the introduction of “color-blindness” would not result in “prinicpled fairness” by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, there would be more pressure on entire communities for school redistricting, zoning, grade inflation and academic fraud in an attempt to crack the desired 10% formula.

    A more detailed look at these 10% schemes and data on the impact can be found here:

    http://www.texastop10.princeton.edu/publicity/Chronicle0104.pdf.

    I found the reaction of many white parents quite interesting, but in all fairness on this point, this report is quite unbiased, and also provides data that would lend support to these schemes. I just like to have full disclosure on the pros and cons.

    –Cobra

  37. John Rosenberg March 5, 2005 at 8:20 am | | Reply

    So you can see, the introduction of “color-blindness” would not result in “prinicpled fairness” by any stretch of the imagination.

    cobra – Both you and coxey… are missing the point here. I do not presume to speak for all critics of racial preferences, but I am familiar enough with the arguments to claim with some confidence that I speak for many (and I can claim with absolute confidence that I do speak for myself) when I say that we do not see our criticism of the racial discrimination inherent in racial preferences as one step on the journey to make the world comply with our notion of “principled fairness.”

    I have said here many times that there are many, even virtually unlimited, kinds of discrimination that may indeed be unfair that neither are nor should be illegal, and certainly not unconstitutional. Legacy preferences are a good example, as are preferences to athletes, subsidies to, say, tobacco farmers but not cotton growers, etc., etc., etc. Again, as I’ve said many times, I think those of you who defend racial preferences on the grounds that they are really no different from the accepted versions of discrimination minimize and even demean the special nature of race in our history while loudly proclaiming that it is central to everything.

    As for the Texas 10% plan, I think a good argument can be made that it is not “fair” to the students in the 11th percentile at strong high schools. The arguments of Gov. Perry — for example, that it is driving strong students out of state for college — and the very, very un-conservative Larry Faulkner, president of the University of Texas — that it leads to too great an emphasis on grades at the expense of other qualifications, such as music — are certainly reasonable and not at all sly efforts to promote white supremacy.

    I myself, however, am agnostic on the Texas plan. I believe academic freedom grants universities broad discretion to govern themselves, including their admissions policies, however they see fit, except that they should not be allowed to trespass onto constitutionally protected ground (or what should be constitutionally protected ground) and discriminate on the basis or race or religion. The Texas plan easily meets that test, in my view, whether or not it is fair and wise.

  38. superdestroyer March 5, 2005 at 8:56 am | | Reply

    John,

    One of the overtly discriminatory practices of the top 10% plan is that it keeps punishing white kids because of the residential choices of their parents. Take the white kid who is in the 11th percentile at Plano East. He has to attended UT-Arlington or U of North Texas instead of UT-Austin. Yet, if he applies to a professional or graduate school at UT-Austin later, the admission officers at UT are going to demand of the white aluminist of Plano East higher GRE/LSAT/MCAT scores than of the black alumnist of Dallas Carter who was admitted to UT-Austin under the 10% rule. Thus,a supposedly race neutral practice of the State of Texas keeps punishing the kids because of their race.

  39. Nels Nelson March 5, 2005 at 9:31 am | | Reply

    superdestroyer, how is that race discrimination? Surely Plano East has non-white students who are similarly impacted.

  40. John Rosenberg March 5, 2005 at 10:03 am | | Reply

    What Nels said. And as I’ve just said, I have no problem with recognizing that some effects of the Texas 10% plan may be “unfair” to some students. But any plan would be unfair to some, even requiring a certain GPA or SAT score to be considered. But unfairness, or unwiseness or bad policyness, does not amount to the sort of discrimination that should be barred. And in the particular example about, what? geographican discrimination? all you’ve shown, at best, is a “disparate impact” on whites. I have never believed that “disparate impact” is a good criterion for determining discrimination, and I don’t here either.

  41. Cobra March 5, 2005 at 10:14 am | | Reply

    Superdestroyer writes:

    >>>One of the overtly discriminatory practices of the top 10% plan is that it keeps punishing white kids because of the residential choices of their parents.”

    That’s one of the fun surprises in this “10% Cracker Jack Box” style plan. It tends to punish segregatory housing choices by whites. At least that’s the unspoken complaint by parents in Texas.

    Now, I give credit where credit is due. John’s argument in his last post was based upon principle and constitutional law, which innoculates him, at least in my opinion, in this particular argument from accusations of racial animus. That’s no surprise, because that’s been my position with him from the start. However, the problem with John’s position is that the Constitution is not etched on stone tablets. It is AMENDABLE. Slavery was once “constitutional”, as well as banning women from voting. Given the belief John holds here:

    >>>I have said here many times that there are many, even virtually unlimited, kinds of discrimination that may indeed be unfair that neither are nor should be illegal, and certainly not unconstitutional.”

    I wonder what John’s position would be if the Constitution was changed. Given the upcoming changes to the USSC, the Republican shift in Congress, and a President hell bent on setting precedents, we’re likely to see SOME changes to the Constitution in the next four years. My question to John is this:

    Are the whims of human, therefore imperfect legislators and judges more important to you than your own personal sense of morality and justice?

    –Cobra

  42. John Rosenberg March 5, 2005 at 3:04 pm | | Reply

    I wonder what John’s position would be if the Constitution was changed…

    cobra – Wonder no more. My position is based both on what I believe is right and on what I believe the Constitution requires. These are frequently not the same, especially if one believes (as I do not) that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Thus, slavery was wrong and should have been fought even before the 13th Amendment. Racial discrimination was wrong and should have been fought even before Brown and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And it is still wrong and should still be fought even though the Court provided limited sanction to it in Grutter.

  43. Cobra March 5, 2005 at 6:23 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>Thus, slavery was wrong and should have been fought even before the 13th Amendment. Racial discrimination was wrong and should have been fought even before Brown and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And it is still wrong and should still be fought even though the Court provided limited sanction to it in Grutter.”

    And this is the fundamental area where John and I rumble so often on this weblog. We simply have a FAR different perception of racial discrimination and what it entails. We also have a far different sense of scale. I for one, would not choose to place the unrequited feelings of entitlement by two modern suburban white women (Gratz and Grutter) on the SAME SCALE as CENTURIES of Slavery, and the American Apartheid system of Jim Crow. I’m not alone in that opinion.

    http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/trevorcoleman.html

    John, I understand that it’s NOT what your intention is, but the impression that I get from many posters to your blog is:

    “You minorities should quit whining about the past. It was wrong, but get over it. There may be problems for you today, but so what? Life’s a (expletive deleted). Just stay in school, work hard and you’ll succeed.”

    That’s closely followed by a message about how Affirmative Action is an abomination or how outrageous it is that “underachieving” whites don’t get a free pass anymore due to racial preferences.

    It’s very interesting how the advice to minorities from the majority is suddenly not applicable in reverse.

    –Cobra

  44. John Rosenberg March 5, 2005 at 9:13 pm | | Reply

    I for one, would not choose to place the unrequited feelings of entitlement by two modern suburban white women (Gratz and Grutter) on the SAME SCALE as CENTURIES of Slavery, and the American Apartheid system of Jim Crow

    cobra – You remind me of those Jews for whom nothing is evil unless it is as evil as the holocaust, and who are convinced nothing ever was or will be that evil. For these people (as for you), preferences for Jews would be O.K. because nothing could make up for the EVIL that was done to them. And what if Protestants or Catholics complain that preferences for Jews is religious discrimination? Easy, who are those “modern suburban” [or middle class or reltatively fortunate or whatever] to complain? Nothing that benefits Jews could possibly be discrimination.

    Sound familiar?

    Neither the 14th Amendment nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act were intended to stamp out all EVIL (your typing style is beginning to rub off on me). They were meant to bar discrimination on the basis of race, something you support when you believe it benefits the group to which you belong and oppose (I assume) all other times. Yes, slavery was EVIL (sticking withthe style). Yes, Jim Crow was EVIL. No, racial preferences are not as evil as either. But they neverthelss employ discrimination based on race, and that is still wrong.

  45. KC March 13, 2005 at 9:57 pm | | Reply

    I am currently a student at a top ranked US University. I was admitted before our school was forced to employ an official AA policy, but I am still an advocate of AA. It is definitely wrong when schools use AA to meet quotas, but I think a lot of you are misinterpreting the purpose of AA. Across the nation minority schools receive less funding, poorer teachers, and fewer classroom resources. Standardized test scores are important in selecting students for admittance. It is an unreasonable request for students to be expected to have equal test scores to those with double the amount of educational opportunities in high school. Some students at my school took Calculus in the tenht grade……of course their SAT scores wiil be higher. This is not a testament of their intelligence and probability of success……simply the differences in school opportunities. At many schools, AA causes them to consider applicants who ordinarily would not get a second look due to the circumstances under which they were born. I do have a problem with the fact that AA does not leave room for this type of consideration for non-minorities who grew up with similar circumstances. I must say that comparing other immigrant groups to African-Americans is very unrealistic. They have a more difficult situation, evidenced by the fact that recent immigrant blacks perform so much better academically. The problems for black families that span generations in the US are much deeper than every other group EXCEPT Native Americans. Being in a country where you are treated as a second class citizen and not knowing a country where your people reigned has a powerful affect. These sorts of groups, including most African Americans, suffer from internalized racism. They actually believe that they are inherently athletic but less intelligent, which is a falsehood. Many minorities perform poorly academically due to stereotype threat (fear of confirming a negative stereotype). This causes even some of the best minorities to underperform. I am very familiar with the 10 percent rule at UT Austin because I attend Rice University. This is a major problem, but I find it funny that the unfairness to white students was highlighted. This is unfair to everyone. A large number of the students admitted under the 10 percent rule do not survive because their high schools do not prepare them for such a strenuous academic environment. I applaud AA for giving minority students who ordinarily would not have gotten a second look a chance. However I think using it to uphold a quota and force schools to admit certain numbers is wrong. It is important to note that all of the AA in the world is useless until minority schools start getting the same resources. In the current state of public education, there are not sufficient numbers of blacks to reach “quotas” at all of the nations universities without admitting someone somewhere who probably will not survive. But without AA students who could do well would be overlooked because their high schools lacked resources. From what I have seen, the work you get from a minority student form an inner-city public school with a 1300 SAT is no less than what you would get from a white middle/upper middle class student with a 1600 SAT. The simple truth is that a large number of college entrance requirements are stacked against a large number of minority students due to their high school circumstances and the internalized attitudes of inferiority that are passed along in black families that decended from slaves. I think AA gives opportunities to a lot of deserving and qualified students who would have ordinarily been overlooked but I do not think it will fix the problems that blacks face in America. There is so much historical baggage such as internalized racism and stereotype threat that cannot be fixed by AA. It is a temporary fix for a few students but will never be a long term solution.

  46. Ana Maria March 26, 2006 at 10:26 pm | | Reply

    “I must say that comparing other immigrant groups to African-Americans is very unrealistic. They have a more difficult situation, evidenced by the fact that recent immigrant blacks perform so much better academically. The problems for black families that span generations in the US are much deeper than every other group EXCEPT Native Americans.”

    –KC

    I disagree with you to a certain extent on this and i’ll use a personal experience.

    I am a 15 year old black immigrant and feel that African Americans can do better than they currently are doing if they feel a little more pressure to.

    You wouldn’t believe it if i told you that my former High school barely had a roof to it and we hardly had teachers come in to teach.I had less than 1% of the academic opportunity most Blacks in the United States have and still managed to skip two grades and maintain an above average gpa.

    Black Americans do not have a more difficult situation than other immigrant groups. The opposite of this is the truth.

    Black Immigrants are used to hard work and daily struggle. They are also pressured especially by parents to succeed in life.

    Do I agree with affirmative action?

    Yes I do! and my reason is the same as yours. Many of my white classmates are currently enrolled in some form of SAT prep courses that cost hundreds to thousands of dollars. I obviously can’t afford that and i’ll have to prepare on my own. I don’t think it’s fair that the adcoms (or whatever they are called)favor the higher results without consideration as to why they are high.

    Also, there are some students whose parents and siblings help them with their school assignments e.t.c either because they are college professors or college graduates. My parents on the other hand barely graduated from high school and don’t speak english therefore I am on my own.

    Things like this should also be considered.

    I will be applying to Rice University this fall or next summer(i found this site while performing a google search on it) because of the debt cancellation program for low income students. Of course I have my State Uni. as a safety school.

Say What?