“Affirmative action is a blessing and a curse,” said Grand Valley State University [Michigan] sophomore Vivian Kendall.
We do get to go to school, but people don
Previous Entry: Equal Protection Or Preferential Treatment?
Next Entry: Popular Opinion On Affirmative Action?
Is Kendall saying: “AA is a blessing because I wouldn’t have gotten in if I hadn’t been black, but AA is a curse because people think I wouldn’t have gotten in if I hadn’t been black.”?
LTEC,
Sort of. One point I’d make is that Grand Valley State U is not selective enough for preferences to be used in admissions. However, many of its students attempted to get into Michigan and ended up there, for financial or selectivity reasons, so their is interest in the issue.
Laura, I loved that quote too. Free speech is less of a value than ever before. I remember a BAMN member yelling at the top of her lungs in 2003 when Ward Connerly first came to Michigan, “We won’t stop until people like him are no longer allowed to speak.” She was arrested shortly thereafter for unlawful disruption and resisting arrest, but U-M police dropped the charges.
This one passage from the article provides two reasons why you don’t want your son or daughter to attend GVSU.
University Council member Tom Butcher discussed the legal aspects of the Republicans
John, it is even worse than you think. There don’t actually have to be _any_ people who gain entry via affirmative action. The fact is that admissions is a black box. As a result, everyone who is eligible for affirmative action is suspected of having benefited. Only if a student is clearly overqualified (as shown either by his or her prior record or by his unusual success) is that doubt alleviated.
But the default is doubt and stigma (and a bizarre anxious guilt on the part of those levying the doubt, as if doubt was something someone “chose” to do).
Craig writes:
>>>John, it is even worse than you think. There don’t actually have to be _any_ people who gain entry via affirmative action. The fact is that admissions is a black box. As a result, everyone who is eligible for affirmative action is suspected of having benefited. Only if a student is clearly overqualified (as shown either by his or her prior record or by his unusual success) is that doubt alleviated.”
Do you believe that “doubts” and “stigmas” about race are exclusive to Affirmative Action?
If you do NOT, then what would be your explanation for “doubts” and “stigmas” IF Affirmative Action is eliminated?
–Cobra
Cobra,
That’s precisely the point. Yes, such doubts and stigmas would still exist, but government would no longer be fueling the fire with gasoline and providing individuals with a convenient excuse to have them.
What would happen in a preference free environment is that those minorities that do succeed would slowly disprove the stereotypes that have developed over time. Real change in attitudes is often slow – sometimes trying to speed it up by force fails.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>What would happen in a preference free environment is that those minorities that do succeed would slowly disprove the stereotypes that have developed over time. Real change in attitudes is often slow – sometimes trying to speed it up by force fails.”
You see, that’s why we’re NEVER going to see eye to eye on many levels, Chetly. There will NEVER be a “preference free environment.”
Let’s say, God forbid, you and your MCRI troops actually SUCCEED and get rid of Affirmative Action in Michigan. You would not create a “preference free environment.” You’d would’ve just stopped the state and local government from officially considering RACE and GENDER as a factor in hiring, admissions and awarding of contracts. As John Rosenberg reminds us, there are a multitude of other preferences and “discriminations” out there that wouldn’t be affected by your scheme. It doesn’t really matter if these other preferences don’t ring any Constitutional alarms. The people who were compelled by law to consider race and gender before, would no longer have to. That very fact does NOTHING to reduce “stigma” or “doubts.” If anything, it EMBOLDENS those people to act on their stereotypical views.
Human nature takes over, and people will simply behave in their own self/group interest. Look at the state of Michigan’s housing right now.
Now, I actually AGREE with some of the second part of your statement. Real change in attitudes are often slow…extremely slow. But my problem is, Chetly…you’re telling TODAY’S black and brown Michiganers that their great grandkids MAY have a shot at “respect” from white Michiganers if they go along with your scheme.
I honestly don’t believe that would be a compelling argument, no matter what good intentions seem to be behind it.
–Cobra
I actually rather doubt that the Michigan admissions team is going to be “emboldened” to let out all of their pent up racism and start discriminating against minorities, since they’ve already spent a few of my tuition dollars taking their desire to discriminate in favor of minorities to court.
As far as workplace discrimination, that’s already illegal and still would be if MCRI passed. Besides, affirmative action (i.e. preferences for minorities) is not mandated to employers. Ergo, if they are doing it now, it’s because they want to, not because any statute “compels” them to. Any hard core racists are probably already trying to find ways around anti-discrimination laws (and certainly aren’t actively persuing affirmative action), so I doubt passing the MCRI is going to “embolden” them if they are already doing something illegal.
Besides, pure market forces are going to drive anti-discrimination in any case. Companies simply won’t succeed if they keep turning away qualified minority applicants, especially since, if the MCRI and current laws are enforced, they would be subject to litigation and prosecution for doing so.
What makes you think that affirmative action, as it stands today, forces racists to hire minorities? It doesn’t make any sense. I guess that’s why you and I, Cobra, will never see eye to eye. For some reason, you believe that the fact that some racism and bias will always exists means that it’s okay for the government to practice it, and that this will somehow correct for the fact that everyone else does it.
Also, I know this isn’t the right thread for it exactly, but it’s more recent and Cobra brought it up when he said “Look at the state of Michigan’s housing right now.”
First off, I think it’s a little extreme to call the fact that some dorm’s are 10% more minority than others a “state” as if it was some sort of horrific tragedy, but whatever. I just thought you might like the perspective of someone who actually goes to Michigan.
If you look at the data, it show’s that the majority of minority students cluster in “North Campus” housing. That means Baits and Bursley, where I live. As the Daily article of a couple days ago stated, Michigan housing is completely colorblind (they don’t even ask for race on the contract). So why does the clustering happen?
Most students who enter housing with roommates are placed in North Campus housing… it has the most traditional double occupancy rooms and is therefore most conducive to placing people with their selected roommates, plus the demand for the North Campus rooms in general are a little lower (mostly just engineers and art students choose to live there). This probably also explains the fact that more people stay in North Campus housing for multiple years.
Essentially, this means that all of this brou-ha-ha about “the state of Michigan housing” is probably due to minority students perhaps being more likely to start school with a roommate that they know. Is this some sort of “self-segregation”? Perhaps, but does it represent a failure on the part of the university? Of course not, unless you think the school shouldn’t let students pick their own roommates, which seems somewhat draconian.
Actually, it’s somewhat ironic, because it may very well mean that the dorms with fewer minority students actually have more students living in the same room with people of different races. The arguments about “critical mass” seem rather bunk then, since the dorms with more minorities are more likely to “self-segregate”.
Does self segregation happen? Of course it does, at least to some extent- the black kids tend to sit together at meals and the asian kids always travel in groups, but it usually isn’t an unfriendly sort of segregation, and people tend to be friendlier to different folks as the year progresses and they become more comfortable with the college environment, which we all have to admit is a tough transition. The “self-segregation” in the dorms seems, at least to me, like nothing more than people choosing to be with friends they already know. I doubt this is some sort of sinister disaster that must be corrected by some sort of social affirmative action. It certainly isn’t an argument in favor of rejecting the MCRI, which Cobra tries to use it as.
It would actually be kind of funny, in a black comedy, Orwellian sort of way, to see the school try to force social integration. Are we going to take “friend inventories” to make sure everyone has the right number of ethnic groups represented? “Damn, I need to get one more white friend and a Native American buddy or I’m gonna have to stop hanging with you guys.” Will they raid your CD collection to make sure you have a diverse mix of music? “I’m sorry, you have far to much Beethoven. We’re assigning you some Garth Brooks and the new 50 Cent album.” Dating would be really interesting. “I really think you’re hot, too, babe, but the Ministry of Diversity says I have to date an Asian girl, a Cuban, and a guy before I can go out with you.”
Garrick,
I think you’re missing the point of what I’m trying to say on this thread. Craig posted that “stigmas” exist about people who receive Affirmative Action simply because they are elligible to receive it. I countered that the stigmas existed before Affirmative Action began and will continue to exist if it is ended. Chetly Zarko countered that a “preference free environment” would allow minority success to eventually, over a slow process, change that stigma. I countered that “preference free environments” are impossible, and a fervent dream about racial respect in the distant future is not a good argument for ending Affirmative Action.
You wrote a fair piece on the state of the University of Michigan’s dorm life. I was referring to the state of Michigan’s housing, re: the personal decisions of Michigan residents living arrangements, and why it’s the one of the most segregated states in the union.
I’m sorely tempted, but I can’t really delve into the meat of your argument without breaking my pledge. I will say that market forces don’t trump racism in a nation of nearly 300 million people, and if you think laws on the books are effective in crime PREVENTION, you need to review the current crime rate in America.
–Cobra
Cobra,
You are correct in that I should have said “government-preference free” environment.
You are incorrect – I think today’s black and brown individuals have a “shot” at “respect” now (and when the lack of respect crosses the line and becomes racial discrimination, civil rights laws give the all people a legal course of action), but even if we play along with your temporal claim for a second, I believe that government racial preferences ensure that black and brown individuals’ great grandchildren won’t get the respect they deserve.
It sounds like the debate has shifted here, Cobra. You agree that “racial preference” is bad, the argument now is now whether government preferences are better than or successfully change societal preferences?
Garrick, you are correct. It isn’t a “disaster,” and not a justification against MCRI (it may be one for it, indeed)although I believe the statistics in the article are the true ones the University had (recall the passage about the students who were trying for two years to get the data, and still haven’t – U-M is paronically secret in its response to FOIA).
I respect your experience, especially from a recent perspective. When I entered the dorms in 1989, I was under the impression that only in rare situations would a freshman get to pick their first year rooommate. The U expressed an interest in having the freshman learn to live in a new environment. I do recall a “dorm ranking” questionairre, where you could express preference, even as a freshman, for a particular dorm (you ordered them, actually), and the University tried to accomodate those preferences – this process occurred though after the upper-classmen “lottery” for each dorm (e.g. West and South Quad had a very competitive lottery because of their ideal locations, other dorms often had few lottery entrants). It strikes me then that U-M does try to accomplish some educational things in its housing.
Garrick, you’re point:
Are we going to take “friend inventories” to make sure everyone has the right number of ethnic groups represented?
Actually, the Michigan Student Study did exactly that in a survey distributed to 4500 freshman, following them from 1990-1994. One of the question sets determined the “six best friends” ethnicity – this factor was used as proxy for whether students actually became more diverse over time. I’d have to go back and look at the conclusions, but if I recall, it “perceived interracial friendship” fell dramatically, and the measure of actual number of friends in that group of six (which is wide measure) increased slightly (and the raw numbers have been withheld until just recently, so determining significance will take time).
So don’t be surprised when that Ministry of Diversity starts asking….
*start of relatively irrelevant tangent*
Chetly,
The U does still make it somewhat difficult to request a first year roommate (you have to submit your housing contracts in the same envelope), though they do guarantee that you will be roomed with that person if at all possible. That being said, they do discourage choosing a roommate for various reasons, basically saying that living with a new person is part of the experience and that you’d probably like your friend less by the end of the year. The housing lottery works pretty much the same way, though if you choose to stay in the same dorm the next year, you get to select your own room and roommate.
*end of somewhat irrelevant tangent*
Cobra,
You continue to hit on the fact that bias would exists without affirmative action, but you fail to make a convincing argument as to how affirmative action makes things at all better. Would stigma still exist without AA? Yes, but at least one source of stigma would be eliminated. Everyone would know that the minority students were accepted because of their merit and not because of their race. Since supporters of AA seem to think that all minorities must overcome horrific challenges to reach college (don’t get me wrong, a lot of them do, but as I’ve so often stated, that’s a function of economics, not genetics), they would probably receive a “positive” stigma, if anything, from the majority of people in academia.
Since you seem to concede that the stigma does exist, and seem to suggest that all stigma is bad, let’s do some simple math. Assume no stigma is ideal. Take the current stigma in society, and subtract the stigma due to AA. Unless stigma due to AA is less than zero, the result will be closer to zero than current stigma. QED.
So essentially, you’re trying to fall back on the fact that ending AA as we know it won’t cure everything to say that ending AA will cure nothing, which is a clear logical fallacy. Will it create a perfect world? Of course not. But unless you can prove to me that AA, as it stands, provides benefits that outweigh the discrimination and stigma, then you have to admit that we ought to end it. Besides, you’ve never really answered my previously stated assertion that we ought to turn to action based on rectifying the education gap between rich and poor rather than discriminate based on race.
Finally, you make the point that laws don’t always prevent crimes. Of course they don’t. But that doesn’t mean that they do no good at all if they are well enforced, unless you think the fact that murders occur means that we should throw out homicide law.
In any case, AA does nothing at all to prevent racism either. Does letting a few African American students into the U stop Joe Klansman from dislikin’ black folk? Not at all. Does it prevent a really racist HR manager from rejecting black applicants? Not at all. If anything, it only reinforces their stereotypes by allowing for the very stigma that this thread addresses. Affirmative action relies on the assertion that minority students are, on average, less prepared for college and need special preferences to get in. Heck, Joe Klansman has been saying that for years, and now you’ve just justified that statement for him.
So tell me, how does AA help racism at all? Because if it doesn’t, and it creates this stigma (and it does, I heard it rear it’s rather ugly head in ME 240 just a couple days ago) then it should be repealed immediately.
It has always been your primary claim that racism exists and ending AA won’t solve it. But that’s not the point of the AA debate at all, since we all, for the most part, agree with it. You’re debating with no clashing argument. If your goal is to crusade against racism, then I applaud your effort. But if you wish to convince me that AA does more good than harm, you have a long way to go.
Cobra, AA has the potential to produce stigma by its very nature. If I knew that a school was run by people who were mildly racist and who had no AA policy at all, and I met some black students there, I’d suspect that they must really be sharp to make it in. Kind of a reverse stigma.
And I don’t understand why it’s not possible to have a preference-free program where race is concerned. It looks like you think it is utterly unavoidable that a school will prefer either black students or white students, and without AA it will default to the white ones. I think you live in an artificially racist universe.
Garrick Williams writes:
>>>It has always been your primary claim that racism exists and ending AA won’t solve it. But that’s not the point of the AA debate at all, since we all, for the most part, agree with it. You’re debating with no clashing argument. If your goal is to crusade against racism, then I applaud your effort. But if you wish to convince me that AA does more good than harm, you have a long way to go.”
Refer to Cobra Argument #1. Again, you make it difficult for me to debate you in depth on this due to my agreement. What is will do however is state the OBVIOUS. For a recipient of Affirmative Action, getting hired to a job otherwise not available, gaining admission to a competitive school (and a shot at a more valuable degree)or receiving a government contract whereas before it was unattainable are UNQUESTIONABLY “GOOD THINGS” for the recipient, IMHO.
Now weigh those above benefits against
the “detriments” given in this post, being essentially, the continuation of a pre-existant stigma about minorities held by whites.
In MY mind as a minority, it’s no contest at all. I have no control over whatever biases, stigmas, stereotypes or prejudices you may or may not harbor so my matriculation, employment or contract possession would be irrelevant.
If your argument is that I should oppose Affirmative Action out of “shame” or some unreciprocated sense of American brotherhood and good will–I’m sorry. I’ll take the job, degree and government contract over your personal gratification every time.
Chetly writes:
>>>You are incorrect – I think today’s black and brown individuals have a “shot” at “respect” now (and when the lack of respect crosses the line and becomes racial discrimination, civil rights laws give the all people a legal course of action), but even if we play along with your temporal claim for a second, I believe that government racial preferences ensure that black and brown individuals’ great grandchildren won’t get the respect they deserve.”
It is a strange time we live in, Chetly. I just sat through a week of consevatives SCREAMING for the federal government to intercede in state jurisdiction and personal family matters in Florida, and now I am watching you, another conservative argue that minorities should run to TRIAL LAWYERS everytime they feel they are discriminated against.
Now, liberal that I am, I love trial lawyers, but I recognize that a lawsuit is no guarantee of justice, especially when schools, corporations and the government can afford MORE lawyers, and can stretch out procedings as long as they wish. Given TORT REFORM and the conservative agenda to kneecap discrimination lawsuits to begin with, I’d have to side with Affirmative Action over litigation. Much better success rate.
>>>It sounds like the debate has shifted here, Cobra. You agree that “racial preference” is bad, the argument now is now whether government preferences are better than or successfully change societal preferences?”
Actually, I claimed that racial preferences would still exist irregardless of whether the government participated or not. Whether they are “good” or “bad” depends upon the recipient of the preference, wouldn’t you say?
–Cobra
Cobra writes: “but I recognize that a lawsuit is no guarantee of justice, especially when schools, corporations and the government can afford MORE lawyers, and can stretch out procedings as long as they wish.”
Sounds like you’re talking about the tactics of the University of Michigan. And I have a feeling Barbara Grutter would agree that a lawsuit is no guarantee of justice.
Jennifer Gratz writes:
>>>Sounds like you’re talking about the tactics of the University of Michigan. And I have a feeling Barbara Grutter would agree that a lawsuit is no guarantee of justice.”
Most courtroom LOSERS feel that way.
I however, believe JUSTICE was served in the Grutter vs. Bollinger decision.
–Cobra
cobra wrote”
For a recipient of Affirmative Action, getting hired to a job otherwise not available, gaining admission to a competitive school (and a shot at a more valuable degree)or receiving a government contract whereas before it was unattainable are UNQUESTIONABLY “GOOD THINGS” for the recipient, IMHO.
However, it is a BAD THING for everyone else in society. First, it tells the black children of college educated white collar parents they they do not have to try as hard. They can get into a “competiative school” on a steep discount.
Second, it is a bad thing for every Asian and white kid that missed out on that good college to make room for that black kid with the lower SATs, lower GPA, and light wieght transscript.
Third, it is a bad thing for all of the white and asian kids in the suburban school who are killing themselves to put a huge qualification difference between themselves and the minorities who get the AA admission. Why do you thing that the virutally every shopping center in the white and Asian neighborhoods have the SAT prep school but they don’t exist in the black neighborhoods.
Also, AA admissions hurt the white kids at the non-competative colleges because when they apply to graduate and professional schools, racist like you are going to still expect them to have higher GPAs and test scores than the black students admitted to the competative school on an AA admission.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>However, it is a BAD THING for everyone else in society. First, it tells the black children of college educated white collar parents they they do not have to try as hard. They can get into a “competiative school” on a steep discount.”
Nonsense. One of the fallacious myths implied by the Anti-Affirmative Action types is that EVERY black, brown or red person gets accepted, hired, admitted or promoted REGARDLESS of qualification, while every white or yellow (Asians are used by this crew as their innoculation against Cobra Argument #1) person has impeccable, beyond reproach qualifications. Of course this is ridiculous on its face.
If there is a case out there of a 4.0 valedictorian with a perfect standardized test score, no criminal record, and some semblance of extracurriculars NOT getting accepted into the school of his or her choice, I would love for you to point that individual out to me. Everybody ELSE is subject to varying admissions criteria and human judgement.
Superdestoyer writes:
>>>Second, it is a bad thing for every Asian and white kid that missed out on that good college to make room for that black kid with the lower SATs, lower GPA, and light wieght transscript.”
Your post is DRIPPING with another STIGMA (at least I’m staying on topic)–the stigma of White Entitlement. “Making room for” implies that whites and Asians own “predetermined collegiate spots”, while brown-skinned folks are little more than academic carpet baggers or “squatters.” Despite all of you, and other AAA type vitriol, the FACTS are that:
>>>In 2003, 17.3 percent of all African Americans over the age of 25 held a college degree. This figure has increased significantly from 13.8 percent in 1996 and 11.3 percent in 1990.
Despite the good news, the figures still show that blacks continue to have a long way to go before they reach higher educational parity with white Americans. Overall, 27.6 percent of the white population over the age of 25 holds a college degree compared to 17.3 percent of adult blacks. All told, there are 44,129,000 whites who have a four-year college degree. Thus, there are 12 times as many whites with a college degree as blacks who hold a college diploma. While there are 12 times as many whites as blacks who hold a college degree, it must be remembered that whites outnumber blacks in the United States by a ratio of about 8 to 1.”
http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/44_college-degree.html
This is not a “data dump.” This is a refutation of a LUDICROUS notion that somehow, Affirmative Action is “preventing” white people from getting a college education. Apparently, it’s not enough to just get a pony for your Sweet 16. It has to be a Shetland pony with a billowing mane or ELSE litigation will ensue.
Which “stigma” is worse?
–Cobra
Cobra,
You either mischaracterize me as “conservative” (your brand of it), or you fail to understand that there is “diversity” even among “conservatives.” Also, before pigeonholing me, I’ve never told you my views on either trial lawyers or the current situation in Florida -in cases, I have a very nuanced view, too detailed to lay out here.
You write:
…but I recognize that a lawsuit is no guarantee of justice, especially when schools, corporations and the government can afford MORE lawyers, and can stretch out procedings as long as they wish. Given TORT REFORM and the conservative agenda to kneecap discrimination lawsuits to begin with, I’d have to side with Affirmative Action over litigation. Much better success rate.
Let’s see: 20-30 gap in graduation rates for race preferences saddling minorities with debt, stigma, and set-up to failure (when they could have been educated and graduated at institutions that focus on education).
versus
No cost (most trial lawyers will take discrimination cases on contingency) litigation that recovers 6 plus figures in provable (and many not-so provable but where the company settles out for PR reasons) discrimination cases.
More to the point, you say that the legal system has “… no guarantee of justice.” Is this about “guaranteeing” justice? I’m afraid government that attempts that would need to be in every phase of everyone’s life – all-knowing, all-powerful and Orwellian (we’re back to that “free association” balancing). The best goal government should have it is to have a consistent system that treats everyone equally when the government interacts with people – and in my opinion, as little interaction as is possible for the normal operation of a decent society. “Equal justice” doesn’t mean perfect justice, nor is justice for one necessarily justice for another.
Preferences fall way short of your Orwellian social contract though – 86% go to wealthier minorities, and very few of those suffering in the inner-cities are helped. No “justice” for all.
Chetly Zarko writes:
Let’s see: 20-30 gap in graduation rates for race preferences saddling minorities with debt, stigma, and set-up to failure (when they could have been educated and graduated at institutions that focus on education).
versus
No cost (most trial lawyers will take discrimination cases on contingency) litigation that recovers 6 plus figures in provable (and many not-so provable but where the company settles out for PR reasons) discrimination cases.”
Where do we begin here? First, a question–do you feel that schools such as YOUR alma matter, the University of Michigan are NOT “institutions that focus on education?” What is your explanation for THAT statement? Do you favor some sort of “separate but equal” institutions that I’m unaware of?
Second, what I suggested in irony about TRIAL LAWYERS in my last post you seem to embrace as an AUTHENTIC SUBSTITUTE for women and minorities to affirmative action. You’re being faceitious, of course…
Or are you?
I mean, you’re actually suggesting here that any woman or minority who feels slighted or discriminated against in anyway should file a lawsuit?
Forgive me, John Rosenberg…I’m not going to repeat Cobra Argument #1, or data dump, but does Chetly Zarko REALIZE how MANY LAWSUITS would flood the system if his scheme was detonated? And staying on the TOPIC OF THE THREAD, does Chetly realize the BIBLICAL proportions of STIGMA generated in whites if they believed that every black or brown face they see is ready to sue them on a hair trigger? Hell, I’ve already seen quotes to that affect.
Why, let’s look at formal filings to the EEOC from last year:
>>>In fiscal year 2004, EEOC received 27,696 charges of race discrimination. EEOC resolved 29,631 race charges in FY 2004, and recovered $61.1 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation). The EEOC has observed an increasing number of color discrimination charges. Color bias filings have increased by 125% since the mid-1990s, from 413 in FY 1994 to 932 in FY 2004.”
That’s not a data dump, or irrelevant, uncontested trivial factoids. Those are people who have gone through the channels of filing complaints to the EEOC. That doesn’t take into account people who simply feel they are slighted because of their race. Take those 30,000 or so and multiply that EXPONENTIALLY.
In hypothetical ZARKAMERICA:
“I didn’t get hired/promoted/admitted/chosen/contracted. I think it’s because I’m (fill in the blank.) Let’s sue ’em!”
Chetly if you are seriously suggesting that EVERY non-white who feels dissatisfaction with an outcome SUE whatever individual, school, company, establishment, corporation or government entity as a substitute for Affirmative Action… I don’t know where to go with you in this one. I know Zarkamerica is not unheard of. The above skit is pretty much the Jennifer Gratz story, right?
Now, I understand that the conservatives you don’t claim membership to are out there on the right flank trying to make discrimination lawsuits as difficult as possible, while trying to appoint as many civil rights hostile judges and officials as they can, but that’s no surprise to me. It also doesn’t surprise me when Ward Connerly chirped up with Proposition 54 in California after Prop 209, which would hamstring class action race discrimination lawsuits by outlawing race-based statistics and record keeping. What surprises me is that apparently you think minorities want to spend all of our time in courts litigating, instead of pursuing the American dream.
That’s STIGMA if I ever saw it.
–Cobra
Cobra,
i know about the stats that you are talking about. What you neglected to say that only about 4% of blacks over 25 way back in 1964 had college degrees. but now it has jumped to 17% right? What does that tell you? If you really analyze it, it means that blacks actually have a faster rate of increase among its younger generation than whites in the acquisition of college degrees after 1965. If the rate of increase in the acquisition of college degrees by blacks is the same as that of whites, then the the current percentage of blacks over 25 who have college degrees would be lower tahn 17 %. What you forgot to tell the folks in this forum Cobra is that even way back way back in in 1964 the percentage of whites who had
college degrees over 25 was 9%. Do the ratios Cobra, the ratio of 4/9 is worse than 18/27 , right ? And I suspect you are going to say that the improvement was due to race preferences. The percentage of blacks over 25 who have college degrees will eventually be equal to that of whites. That might take 20 or 25 years, but when that time comes are you gonna still demand race preferences?
Leo Cruz writes:
>>>And I suspect you are going to say that the improvement was due to race preferences. The percentage of blacks over 25 who have college degrees will eventually be equal to that of whites. That might take 20 or 25 years, but when that time comes are you gonna still demand race preferences?”
So basically you’re saying that Affirmative Action WORKS, and the proof is in the rising college degree ratio?
….
Welcome home, Leo!
–Cobra
Cobra,
I’m ignoring you’re outright fabrications of what I said about lawsuits. You “don’t know where to go with it,” because I never said it.
I will answer this question though:
First, a question–do you feel that schools such as YOUR alma matter, the University of Michigan are NOT “institutions that focus on education?” What is your explanation for THAT statement?
Have you heard of the distinction between a “research univeristy” and liberal arts schools? U-Michigan is a research u, it cycles students, white or black, through its undergraduate system to finance a larger system of graduate, post doc, and research by a variety of Institutes and cooperative arrangements with corporations. There may be social and economic value to this research system, although my previous writings questions the extent to which the University has gone down this road. Education is not the focus – these types of universities function best with students that are prepared (not “able,” but prepared) better to go through the system without help. This is why research universities with race preferences are at the bottom of the minority retention scale, even though they have a few token programs that appear to assist minorities throughout the process (and they succeed somewhat on graduation rates by, “steering” minorities to “softer-sciences”, which has economically damaging effects, see the quote from black law professor in my Michigan Bar article), the overall system isn’t configured for success. Even at “elite liberal arts” schools, which I hypothesize fair “better,” the preparation and pace of education concerns cheat preference recipients out
the education that would benefit them.
As to the “success” of the last 40 years, that Leo points out, it proves that when government removed preferences against blacks, that they were able to compete on the same footing. Those numbers include all levels of college – not just elite universities. The question is not whether people shouldn’t go to college – almost anyone in the US who wants to can with a single phone call. The question is which colleges should we send people to at different preparation levels, and what are the consequences to changing the preparation levels. This goes into what I said just above.
Aren’t Cobra’s comments a bald admission that blacks (and particularly black men) can’t hack it?
The endless whining for preference, Cobra, is the admission of your intellectual failure. The desparate fear evident in all of Cobra’s postings is the answer to this post.
The real question is: Why keep telling people that you cannot and will not succeed? Please tell us, Cobra, why it must simply be given to you. Why are you so weak and helpless? Would you walk onto a basketball court and plead helplessness and demand a handicap? (Perhaps you would.)
The person you are talking about who is diminished and stigmatized by this obsession with racial giveaways is… Cobra.
Cobra,
You are really ignorant aren’t you? i am just talking about percentages, not rates of completions of college degrees. In the case of black women for example, their college completion rates as of now is almost equal to that of white males.Did you see the data that came out of the Census Bureau last week? The data said that on the average ,black women who have college degrees now earn more than white women who have college degrees How does that square with your idea that blacks still face racial discrimination in admittance to the universities?. Only an increase in the number of college degrees for black women would be a major factor in contributing to that fact. How does race preferences increase the number of blacks getting degrees?. it might increase the number of blacks getting degrees, but it creates a great deal of bitterness and stigma all around that is not worth the increase in black degree recipients. Not only that , there is proof that those admitted due to preferences don’t perform as well as those those who were admitted without preferences, that is something true even in medical school. 2 years ago, the Hartford Courant published a report saying that the 2 medical schools which had the worst record of graduates having their licenses revoked, suspended or receiving reprimands were Meharry and Howard.The majority of blacks admitted to less competetive public universities are admitted without race preferences, that might be different however in the more competetive public universities. Private universities are altogether a different matter. Banning race preferences won’t help whites that much specially in states where there is an increasing population of Asians like California, Texas, Georgia or Nevada. last year, for the first time in a Mainland US medical school, whites became the second largest racial group in the freshman class of a medical school.That happened in the UC SAn Diego Medical School. Prop 209 has something to do with that. There are very few blacks in its entering class unlike harvard medical school which enrolled 21 blacks in its freshman class. i told you already about the case of San francisco. What is the difference between the abandonment of whites of the public schools in favor of private schools over there and the passage of Prop 209? it did not help the white folks in SF to get their kids inside Berkeley. Only 24 white kids from San Francisco County enrolled at Berkeley for the fall 2004 freshman class versus 106 Asians. If blacks would be admitted soley on the basis of grades and SAT scores in the public universities since 1965, do you think that the percentage of blacks who have college degrees above the age of 25 would be 18 %?. It might be lower but not much lower. My estimate is that the figure would be just 15%. When Prop 209 banned race preferences, the percentage of black freshman in the UC system dropped by just 20 %. it did not even drop in the Cal state system? why? because a good number of blacks denied admission to the UC system simply shifted to the Cal STate system which is less competetive. In the case of black women, even without race preferences, their college completion rates would probably be equal to that of white males by now. It boils down to this , it is the obligation of blacks to study harder to get inside a university for them to increase their college completion rates. And don’t give me the crap that I have to know every MCAT score of every black student in Meharry or Howard Medical school. I know the statistical data. Those 2 medical schools had the lowest average MCAT scores of any medical freshman class in this country.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>I’m ignoring you’re outright fabrications of what I said about lawsuits. You “don’t know where to go with it,” because I never said it.”
I suppose that’s one way out of not acknowledging one’s own DIRECT QUOTES. I won’t dog you on it further, Chetly, because readers can simply scroll back up and see your “Affirmative Action versus Discrimination lawsuits” equation and make their own decisions about whether you actually posted it.
What piques my curiosity is the explanation of your statement about “education.”
>>>This is why research universities with race preferences are at the bottom of the minority retention scale, even though they have a few token programs that appear to assist minorities throughout the process (and they succeed somewhat on graduation rates by, “steering” minorities to “softer-sciences”, which has economically damaging effects, see the quote from black law professor in my Michigan Bar article), the overall system isn’t configured for success. Even at “elite liberal arts” schools, which I hypothesize fair “better,” the preparation and pace of education concerns cheat preference recipients out
the education that would benefit them.”
and here…
>>>The question is which colleges should we send people to at different preparation levels, and what are the consequences to changing the preparation levels. This goes into what I said just above.”
In the spirit of Springtime, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not ding you on the BLATANT implications of STIGMA (still on point) in your post.
Instead, I will ask you a couple of questions. You have a great looking website, Chetly. You have an impressive biography, but I would like to know WHY you chose to apply to the University of Michigan, a “research university” (your description) to pursue a degree in POLITICAL SCIENCE–described on the U of M website as part of the College of Literature, Science and the Arts?
http://polisci.lsa.umich.edu/
This is not an ad-hominem attack by any means. Honestly, I commend you for graduating with honors. But would you consider political science one of those “softer sciences” that you claim minorities are being “steered” towards taking?
I agree that college preparation is essential for ANY race of student, but I want to know if you feel that “preferenced” political science majors at the U of M are being cheated “out of getting an education that would benefit them?”
–Cobra
Cobra,
OK Mr. “Direct quote”, could you show me anywhere exactly where I said what you claimed I said here:
Cobra: I mean, you’re actually suggesting here that any woman or minority who feels slighted or discriminated against in anyway should file a lawsuit?
….
In hypothetical ZARKAMERICA:
“I didn’t get hired/promoted/admitted/chosen/contracted. I think it’s because I’m (fill in the blank.) Let’s sue ’em!”
Your not “quoting” me – I never said it, and that is not the logical conclusion of my writing. Your weaving a tale of lies and fabrications.
Finally, the “stigma” you refer to in my last comment at research u’s is the stigma that the universities impose, not mine. Many minority “poli sci” students are “tracked” there, rather than being allowed to try something harder, or whatever their whims dictate based on a natural experience at U-M. I pursued my poli sci program out of a long-running interest in policy (in hindsight, there were more “economical” degrees I should have chosen, perhaps like taking two more Economics classes, or Statistics) … I admit that polisci is a softer science, although it can be rigorous and quantitative for those that choose to make it so.
Sorry, the unsigned comment above is mine.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>I pursued my poli sci program out of a long-running interest in policy (in hindsight, there were more “economical” degrees I should have chosen, perhaps like taking two more Economics classes, or Statistics) … I admit that polisci is a softer science, although it can be rigorous and quantitative for those that choose to make it so.”
I respect your honesty in answering that question, Chetly. We may be diametrically opposed on darned near everything, but I give credit where it’s due. Some of your other statements, however…
>>>Your not “quoting” me – I never said it, and that is not the logical conclusion of my writing. Your weaving a tale of lies and fabrications.”
I know you didn’t SAY it. That’s why the above line to the quote reads:
“In HYPOTHETICAL Zarkamerica:”
I’m not going to REPOST AGAIN the sales pitch you offered for discrimination lawsuits over Affirmative Action (March 27, 2005 06:45 PM, third and fourth paragraphs) Again that would veer off the topic of Stigma. Readers can go to the post and decide for themselves.
Also most of my commentary regarding your posts is based in QUESTION form.
Read back through them yourself. My style is to ask QUESTIONS.
“Do you believe that…”
“First, a question–do you feel…”
“What is your explanation…”
“You’re being faceitious, of course…
Or are you?”
“but does Chetly Zarko REALIZE…”
yadda…yadda…yadda.
I admit I tend to EMBELLISH my questions rhetorically. But I’m not lying on ya’, I’m just being liberal with conjecture to clarify viewpoints being espoused.
Leo Cruz writes:
>>>How does race preferences increase the number of blacks getting degrees?. it might increase the number of blacks getting degrees, but it creates a great deal of bitterness and stigma all around that is not worth the increase in black degree recipients.”
Didn’t you answer your own question in the second line of this sentence? Are you making a formula in the latter half of this statement about the value of a college degree versus the bitterness of strangers? That’s not a hard decision if you ask me.
>>>When Prop 209 banned race preferences, the percentage of black freshman in the UC system dropped by just 20 %.”
Huh? Hello…”JUST 20%?” Losing a FULL fifth of an entrance class? It’s not hard for a group tofeel “STIGMATIZED” if 1 out of every 5 members is adversely affected by a particular policy.
>>>It boils down to this , it is the obligation of blacks to study harder to get inside a university for them to increase their college completion rates.”
You have not, and will not EVER hear me argue against studying hard. But you can be an extremely dilligent student in a school that doesn’t offer Calculus or Honors English–subjects that can definitely play a role in standardized test taking, and college preparation. Always remember that there are external mitigating factors involved in most college admissions, and looking at that fact HONESTLY will go alot further in figuring out the issue of STIGMA.
Stephen writes:
>>>Please tell us, Cobra, why it must simply be given to you. Why are you so weak and helpless? Would you walk onto a basketball court and plead helplessness and demand a handicap? (Perhaps you would.”
Hey, if I was playing Illinois this weekend I’d beg for them to spot me 30. I bet ol’ Lute Olsen at Arizona wishes they did.
–Cobra
Hey cobra,
That is what exactly happened in the UC system when Prop. 209 was implemented. Black freshman decreased by 20% in the UC system. Does that not mean however that the number of blacks getting college degrees decreased in Calfornia. Why ? because those blacks denied admission to the UC system just went to the Cal state system The ones who were denied admission to the UC system, in the first place did not deserve to be there . In fact the number of black freshman increased in the Cal state system when Prop. 209 was implemented. What about your foolish statement that claimed ” show me someone who graduated valedictorian of his class with a 4.0 GPA even with little extracurriluars that was denied admission to his school of choice “? Cobra, you are a real ignoramus aren’t you ? Even the UC officals have said that they routinely deny admissions to Berkeley and UCLA to several thousand applicants with average GPAs of 4.0. Or how about the case of the graduates of ARcadia hi in Arcadia , California?
11 of the graduating sping 2004 class applied to harvard ,only 1 of them was admitted, he got a lower SAT score than 4 of his classmates who also applied to harvard who were denied admission. Or about the case of the 17 applicants to yale from the same school from the same year. Only 1 was admitted , 1 classmate of his got a perfect SAT score of 1600 and was denied admission of Yale. How about the the bunch of students from the same school who applied to Stanford with SAT scores above 1500 who were all denied admission, and yet Stanford admitted someone with just a SAT score of 1300 from the same school, Arcadia hi. So Cobra, tell your nonsense to thousands of UC applicants routinely denied admission to UC schools with GPAs of 4.0 and above and to these Arcadia Hi students ,and they will laugh at you. You are really ignorant Cobra, you do not understand how college admissions works specially in the private schools.
Cobra says,
” There a are a lot extra mitigating factors…… ” Oh really Cobra ? what might they be? Poverty perhaps ? Sure there are a lot of poor people in NYC schools be they black, Asian, white or Hispanic. But why is that in every high school in NYC , even in Bronx and harlem, Asians have a higher average score in the Regents exam than blacks and Hispanics even in a Bronx hi school like Theodore Roosevelt, huh? I don’t think the black teachers there care a hoot or that much about their Asian students in that high school but still they perform better than their black counterparts ? Why is that Cobra?
Leo Cruz writes:
>>>But why is that in every high school in NYC , even in Bronx and harlem, Asians have a higher average score in the Regents exam than blacks and Hispanics even in a Bronx hi school like Theodore Roosevelt, huh?”
Now there you go STIGMATIZING Asian Americans again. There is no denying that there are Asian American students who work extremely hard at academic achievement. In my opinion, the reason for this is because those students do exactly that. If you’re saying that there is a GENETIC component involved, you’re every bit as guilty of fostering a stigma as the next guy.
–Cobra
Cobra,
I don’t understand. Are you saying that Asian-American students in poor neighborhoods do better academically than do Black and Latino students in the same neighborhoods because they work harder? If so, why should their socio-economic peers who perform less well be preferred over them in college admissions? It makes no sense to me. It would make more sense to give a boost to students in poor neighborhoods (or in poor schools), and reward the ones who have worked the hardest, and achieved the most in a given school. But that’s basically the X% plan that you’ve attacked innumerable times.
I AM NOT GOING INTO that nonsense about genetic components . What are you accusing me of ? stigmantizing Asian Americans just because they perform better than blacks in every high school in New York , even at high schools in the Bronx like TDR or Dewitt Clinton ?
What’s your problem cobra, you mean there is something wrong if Asians do well better than their black classmates in NYC schools? In a school like Dewitt Clinton, I doubt if they get more help from their black or white teachers compared to blacks. Remember, in a school like that, they are as poor as their black classmates.You haven’t answered my questions about the data that just came out of the Census Bureau saying that black women who have bachelor degrees now earn on the average more than white women who have bachelor degrees. How does that square with your call for race preferences? What that probably means is that the college completion rates of black women are probably closer to that or already equal to that on the average of white males already. What is the rubbish that you are talking about various ” stigma “?, In my eyes, alumni legacy preferences carries the same stigma as race preferences. Why should I care if other people think it is not?Those people are obviously fools.
It is absolutely silly to argue with whites about education in this country. Asians are the leaders of all education in america. ASIANS double whites in damn near every category when it comes to education. OVER fifty percent of asians have college degrees, while whites sit at 27 percent and BLACKS sit at around 19 percent. White women earn far more degrees than white men. Black Women also earn more degrees than BLACK MEN. WOMEN overall have more degrees than men. SO ASIANS AND WOMEN ARE THE TRUE BRAINS OF AMERICA. Oh yeah I am a black man.