“Ugly Ducklings”

Alexander Kleshchev, an immigrant from Belarus and a mathematics professor at the University of Oregon, has an interesting piece on the “ugly ducklings of the University of Oregon: conservative and religious people on campus.”

Say What? (41)

  1. Hull May 22, 2006 at 11:27 am | | Reply

    I’ve heard this argument before: “multiculturists aren’t really interested in diversity because they don’t want Republicans/men/christians/etc.”

    The funny thing about this argument is that these same people despise diversity! But, let’s say for the sake of argument that your group has been excluded from campus or the office. Well, if it is truly a concern then you should fight your fight and I’ll support you (or at least I won’t disagree with your claim for diversity).

    When disabled people wanted greater representation the push for advocacy came from disabled people. When Blacks wanted greater representation the push came from Blacks. GLBT; same thing. No one is going to start a movement for you. So if Republicans/Christians/etc. feel they are being underrepresented, they should (like David Horowitz) push for that representation. Of course, when you do, you’ll have to give up that whole pretense about the “evils” of diversity, political correctness and special interest groups, but that’s another issue.

  2. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 22, 2006 at 7:31 pm | | Reply

    Hull, you need to flip the question back around. What is diversity for? The claim (since Bakke, anyway) is that a diversity of student perspectives is essential to top-quality higher education. Of perspectives, mind you, not of skin colors or nose shapes. Race is there as a proxy for experiences supposed to be largely shared by particular ethnic groups in this country.

    And note (as John has done innumerable times) that the diversity of perspective is supposed to benefit the majority. The minority don’t need any more exposure to the majority, which they already know; but they can edify the majority by their presence. This is what “diversity” is supposed to mean.

    You are confusing this argument with one about “underrepresentation” that is only tangential to it. And you’re missing the point that at least “conservatives” and “religious people” are really groups formed around a “perspective,” however broadly defined, whereas races, ethnicities, and sexualities aren’t.

    If exposure to a wide range of perspectives is necessary to good education, we might as well see whether the racial-affirmative-action proxy method is producing one. If we are reluctant to see what we’re getting, I’d hazard a guess that differing “perspectives” isn’t really the point, especially when other obvious expedients for getting radically different points of view (like preferences for foreign students) aren’t on the table at all.

    That’s the core of the conservative case against “diversity,” I think: that the people promoting it aren’t interested in “diversity” of thought or perspective at all, only in getting roughly proportional (or over) representation of minorities and women in the elite schools. I don’t see anything hypocritical about holding the proponents of “diversity” to a standard of their own design.

  3. John Rosenberg May 22, 2006 at 11:17 pm | | Reply

    Hull writes:

    I’ve heard this argument before: “multiculturists aren’t really interested in diversity because they don’t want Republicans/men/christians/etc.”

    The funny thing about this argument is that these same people despise diversity!

    Two points:

    1. What Michelle said.

    2. Who are these people “who despise diversity”? You have commendably recognized that it is not fair to accuse those of us (or at least not all of us) who oppose racial preferences of being racists. I suggest that you broaden this point and recognize that it is equally unfair to accuse us despising diversity.

    I know I don’t “despise diversity,” but I also know that I really don’t know anyone, even know of anyone among my fellow critics of racial preferences, who does. One does not have to “despise diversity” in order to oppose its suddenly having developed into a full-blown constitutional principle that trumps the constitutional principle opposes basing benefits and burdens on race. That’s like saying anyone who opposes police brutality despises the police, or that anyone who opposes, say, President Bush’s NSA data mining supports the terrorists.

    Your other posts suggest that you’re far too smart actually to believe, on reflection, that someone “despises diversity” just because he thinks the bar on racial discrimination is a higher value. And, of course, as Michelle has pointed out, “diversity” as practiced in admissions offices etc. really isn’t about diversity at all; it’s about pigment-balancing. If it were really about diversity, universities would at the very least also have to take religion into account (most law school faculties have way “too many” Jews and way “too few” evangelical Christians or Moslems or Hindus or even Catholics). I think people can and should oppose “taking religion into account” without fear of being accused of “despising diversity.”

  4. hull May 23, 2006 at 9:59 am | | Reply

    Michelle and John argue:

    “That’s the core of the conservative case against “diversity,” I think: that the people promoting it aren’t interested in “diversity” of thought or perspective at all, only in getting roughly proportional (or over) representation of minorities and women in the elite schools.”

    You must realize that in accusing admissions officers in toto of “pigment-balancing” you fall into the same stereotype trap that you have ascribed to me per my statements about “despising diversity.” I’m sure there are many (most?) diversity officers that are truly concerned with “diversity of perspective” as opposed to pigment diversity.

    “If exposure to a wide range of perspectives is necessary to good education, we might as well see whether the racial-affirmative-action proxy method is producing one.”

    I don’t disagree with that. But, if you don’t disagree with it either than you should support affirmative action (of some sort) as a method of achieving a wide range of perspectives.

    I see this as more of the Conservative mantra, “if it’s broke, kill it.” Instead of pushing to fix welfare Conservatives said “kill it”. Instead of trying to fix affirmative action Conservatives say “kill it.” I disagree with this philosophy.

    “Who are these people “who despise diversity”?”

    George Will: “Under the rubric of “diversity” — nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses — the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation.”

    Pat Buchanan: “The question we Americans need to address, before it is answered for us, is: Does this First World nation wish to become a Third World country? Because that is our destiny if we do not build a sea wall against the waves of immigration rolling over our shores….Who speaks for the Euro-Americans, who founded the USA?…Is it not time to take America back?”

    From Wikipedia: Maryland governor Robert Ehrlich was especially critical of the concept, calling it “crap” and saying that the idea of multiculturalism is flawed and that young immigrants should learn English and assimilate into American culture.

    That said, I’ll concede the point about those who despise diversity. You’re right, there are very few people who are willing to say that they are against diversity per se. Nevertheless, the point remains that throwing out diversity programs is not a suitable means of addressing diversity problems.

  5. John Rosenberg May 23, 2006 at 2:23 pm | | Reply

    You must realize that in accusing admissions officers in toto of “pigment-balancing” you fall into the same stereotype trap that you have ascribed to me per my statements about “despising diversity.” I’m sure there are many (most?) diversity officers that are truly concerned with “diversity of perspective” as opposed to pigment diversity.

    Hull – Whatever admissions officers may think or believe, I’m afraid it is not a sterotype at all to say that what they do when they give racial preferences is to give racial preferences. That is, they do not inquire into religion, political values, favorite movies, or whatever. Racial preferences are based on nothing deeper than skin color or ethnicity. That is not a stereotype; that is a description.

    [Hull, quoting Michelle]:

    “If exposure to a wide range of perspectives is necessary to good education, we might as well see whether the racial-affirmative-action proxy method is producing one.”

    I don’t disagree with that. But, if you don’t disagree with it either than you should support affirmative action (of some sort) as a method of achieving a wide range of perspectives.

    Your statement is almost a perfect non-sequitur. One can favor diversity (or even “diversity”) without favoring extreme and offensive measures, such as racial discrimination, necessary to achieve it. I, for example, am for “diversity” wherever it can be achieved without racial or ethnic discrimination. Your statement is the equivalent of saying, “If you favor school integration, you should support cross-town/county/(state?) busing in order to achieve it.” For that matter, since school “segregation” results from residential segregation, you might as well say, “If you favor school integration, you should favor racially assigned housing; allowing people to choose where they live simply maintains segregation.” Etc.

    [Hull, quoting me]:

    ”Who are these people “who despise diversity”?

    George Will: “Under the rubric of “diversity” — nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses — the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation.”

    This says nothing about what Will thinks of diversity. What it shows is what he thinks about “diversity” as practiced on campuses these days, and he’s absolutely right.

    Pat Buchanan…

    You may well be right about Pat Buchanan. My sense is that PB is sui generis; across the board, liberals probably agree with him on about the same number of issues (though different issues) as conservatives. I agree that we should put an end to the sea wave of illegal immigration, but I don’t like what Buchanan says here.

    From Wikipedia: Maryland governor Robert Ehrlich was especially critical of the concept, calling it “crap” and saying that the idea of multiculturalism is flawed and that young immigrants should learn English and assimilate into American culture.

    I’m not sure what exactly Ehrlich thinks is “crap,” but I believe that description does indeed fit at least some of what goes under the name of “multiculturalism.” I certainly agree also that immigrants should learn English, unless we want to devolve into an ethnic confederacy. But nothing here suggests that either Ehrlich or I “despise diversity.” I, at least, don’t define “diversity” exclusively by skin color or even ethnicity.

    … the point remains that throwing out diversity programs is not a suitable means of addressing diversity problems.

    I think the biggest “diversity problem” today is the racial and ethnic discrmination that is necessary to produce it.

  6. Dom May 23, 2006 at 4:16 pm | | Reply

    1. John made my point about George Will, etc., so I won’t repeat it. But I will add that I’m surprised you thought that quote from Will demonstrates a loathing for diversity.

    2. You have a curious sense of laws. Do you deny freedom of worship to those who deny it to others? Or worse yet, to those who belong to groups that deny it to others? For example, do you think it is right to deny freedom of worship to Muslims, simple because as a group they have denied such freedom to others?

    3. This post shows (but I think you’ve slipped up, so I won’t hold you to it), that when you speak of diversity, as in “diversity makes us more competitive”, you really mean something like — “Diversity for me, but not for thee”.

    4. You come across as someone who despises both diversity and education.

  7. Richard Nieporent May 23, 2006 at 7:09 pm | | Reply

    Why are we arguing about diversity? We all know that it is a convenient fiction that has been invented by the Left so that they can’t be accused of favoring quotas. How in the world does the mere fact of being different provide any benefit? If it did, then we would have Black mathematics, Latino physics and women’s chemistry. The reason we don’t is because we know that it would be utter nonsense to believe that race, ethnicity or gender by itself contributes to our understanding of science or mathematics.

  8. superdestroyer May 23, 2006 at 9:39 pm | | Reply

    Hull,

    Be careful of what you want in the name of diversity. Africa-American students are some of the least likely to study history, study a foreign language, travel abroad, study abroad, etc of any demographic group in the US.

    I would say that if you want to limit the world views on a college campus that the quickest way to do that is to increase the number of African-American students and lower the number of upper middle class white students.

    PS, I would suspect that the local NAACP meeting or the local social group at the AME church would take the same view on Hispanic immigrants as Pat Buchanan does.

  9. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 23, 2006 at 10:43 pm | | Reply

    Hull,

    [me:] “If exposure to a wide range of perspectives is necessary to good education, we might as well see whether the racial-affirmative-action proxy method is producing one.”

    [you:] I don’t disagree with that. But, if you don’t disagree with it either than you should support affirmative action (of some sort) as a method of achieving a wide range of perspectives.

    I think we’re misunderstanding one another. My point is that if we think diversity of perspectives is necessary to good education, and we’re using racial categories as a proxy for “diversity of perspectives,” then we really ought at some point to try to find out whether we are really getting the different perspectives that were the supposed goal. I am agnostic about whether we have or haven’t; what I’m quite sure of is that no one is interested in checking whether we have, or even knows how to go about it if we ever did feel like trying.

    I don’t support affirmative action on diversity grounds for the simple reason that there are easier ways to get diversity if you really think it necessary. The two most obvious, for state universities, are removing admissions preferences (and preferably tuition preferences as well) for in-state students, and assigning all eligible students to campuses by lottery. (There would have to be some exemptions here for students who had to attend a particular school due to home responsibilities, disability, c.)

    What’s not to like? You’d have more out-of-state students in every state school, which means both the incoming students and the residents would experience more “diversity.” And you’d have students of all kinds mixing it up at all state university campuses, confident that their company consisted of other students the university system deemed worthy of it, and were sent to that particular campus by no more than chance. I personally would love to see the UC admissions become a literal lottery of eligible students. In time people might figure out that the actual level of teaching of undergraduates doesn’t differ so much across the system; it’s the level of the other students that matters. So why not just level that out?

    I see this as more of the Conservative mantra, “if it’s broke, kill it.” Instead of pushing to fix welfare Conservatives said “kill it”. Instead of trying to fix affirmative action Conservatives say “kill it.” I disagree with this philosophy.

    I don’t want to “fix” affirmative action, because I think it’s wrong in principle. I value different perspectives, but I think we will get different perspectives, and even better-articulated and unexpected ones, if we just look for quality everywhere we can and find it and bring it in.

  10. hull May 24, 2006 at 10:02 am | | Reply

    O.k.

    John argues: “Whatever admissions officers may think or believe, I’m afraid it is not a sterotype at all to say that what they do when they give racial preferences is to give racial preferences. That is, they do not inquire into religion, political values, favorite movies, or whatever. Racial preferences are based on nothing deeper than skin color or ethnicity. That is not a stereotype; that is a description.”

    How often do admissions officers give racial preference? How often are admissions decisions based solely on racial preferences?

    As for your contention that they do not inquire into “religion, political values, favorite movies, or whatever,” the common college application for 2005-2006 (http://www.commonapp.org/common2006_app.pdf) asks for: citizenship; languages; address; extracurricular activities; academic honors; and work experience among other factors that could be used to differentiate students and create a “diverse class”. Why do you think that admissions officers ignore all of these other factors in favor of race when choosing applicants? Apparently your statement that they do not inquire into XYZ is mistaken. There is no reason to think that the majority of admissions officers are primarily concerned with “pigment balancing.”

    Dom: Nothing there worth responding to.

    Mr. Neiporent says: “We all know that it is a convenient fiction that has been invented by the Left so that they can’t be accused of favoring quotas. How in the world does the mere fact of being different provide any benefit?” O.k. John you wanted an example of someone who despises diversity per se. Here you go. Mr. Neiporent’s statement questions whether there is any benefit to diversity at all because in his world students only study math and science and there would be no benefit to having different gender/ethnic perspectives in these fields. I think those individuals associated with and harmed by the Tuskegee Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_experiment) might beg to differ on the importance of ethnic diversity as it pertains to science.

    “Superdestroyer”: Your statement regarding “Africa”-American students is evidence of the need for greater diversity. If “Africa”-American students are the least likely to XYZ, as you claim, then the need to incorporate them into higher education is greater than racial preferencialists imagine. The dearth of experiences you mention also provides diversity to campuses. When people with less world experience interact with people who have more experience, both groups benefit. Kind of like when you learn from me here. I benefit from sharing knowledge with you.

    Michelle argues: “what I’m quite sure of is that no one is interested in checking whether we have [gotten different perspectives through diversity programs], or even knows how to go about it if we ever did feel like trying.” I think it would be a worthwhile goal to study whether admissions programs actually achieve diversity of perspectives. But, again, that does not mean that diversity programs should be dismantled or that colleges should not try to achieve diversity of perspectives.

    You propose removing admissions preference in state schools as a better means of achieving diversity of perspectives. I don’t know whether that is a better system than the current system and I’d need some evidence to support that notion. But, as long as diversity is achieved in a non-invidious manner, I would support it.

    Michelle also states: “I don’t want to “fix” affirmative action, because I think it’s wrong in principle” Your words indicate otherwise. You do not have a problem with colleges taking steps to achieve diversity per your college lottery suggestion. This would be an affirmative step in achieving diversity. That’s what affirmative action means: taking a positive step to achieve diversity as opposed to just saying “forget about it, there’s nothing we can do.”

  11. John Rosenberg May 24, 2006 at 10:37 am | | Reply

    How often do admissions officers give racial preference?

    Very, very often. There are a number of measures around that I don’t have time to check right now, but the reduction of minority admits to the Univ. of California right after the passage of Prop. 209 and a similar drop at the Univ. of Texas after Hopwood (but before Grutter) are two measures. If racial preferences were not prevalent, after all, there would be little cause for the heated objections to getting rid of them. Why would getting rid of them lead to “resegregation,” or worse, unless many people received the benefit of being treated more favorably becaus of their race?

    How often are admissions decisions based solely on racial preferences?

    This “solely” is purely a red herring that gives the game away. Take two hypothetical candidates who are not only equal but identical in every way except for race. Race, which of course if only “one factor” among many, gives the nod to the darker hued candidate. That candidate, in one way of looking at things, was not admitted “solely” because of race; he had very strong qualifications otherwise. Still, but for race he’d have had a 50% chance of being admitted (the odds in a coin toss); as it happened, race assured his admission.

    Thus I never argued that admissions officers “ignore” all non-racial data. What I do argue is that they should ignore all racial data. Call me weird, but I continue to believe that discrimating for or against someone because of race is fundamentally different from discriminating for or against someone because of extra-curricular activities, etc.

    Racial discrimination is not wrong only in situations where it was the sole factor leading to preferring the preferred minority. Racial discrimination is wrong to whatever degree it occurs.

  12. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 24, 2006 at 7:57 pm | | Reply

    Hull,

    As for [John’s] contention that [universities] do not inquire into “religion, political values, favorite movies, or whatever,” the common college application for 2005-2006 asks for: citizenship; languages; address; extracurricular activities; academic honors; and work experience among other factors that could be used to differentiate students and create a “diverse class.”

    Yes, could be; but are they? There are distinctions to be made here. Colleges and universities generally do prefer students who have a life outside school to those who don’t. They prefer students who have studied at least one foreign language to those who haven’t (in fact, I think most require one foreign language these days). They prefer students with outside interests. They prefer students who have distinguished themselves to the point of winning awards. They prefer students with “work experience” as well, because holding any sort of job involves a measure of discipline. Oh, and they do need a contact address. Obviously.

    Now, does anyone really think that any of this information is being used to increase “diversity” as such, in the way racial categories are used? Do admissions officers keep tables of the languages students have taken and give preferences to those with “underrepresented” ones? Rule that Model U.N. participants are “overrepresented” relative to Book Club organizers and tilt the scale accordingly? Of course not. Apart from the special case of competitive collegiate athletics, where it sure as hell does matter what sport you play, what your activities were before college doesn’t matter remotely as much as how much time and effort you spent on them and whether you distinguished yourself.

    Re Tuskegee, I am at a loss to understand how that horrific experiment has anything to do with “ethnic diversity.” You do not need to study among a “diverse” lot to find this an atrocity; you need only to understand that letting people die before your eyes just to see what will happen, when you have the means to help them, is wrong. I don’t think the problem of some people treating other people as less than human because of their race is soluble by interspersing selected members of the group in question into classrooms, any more than I think Buck v. Bell would have gone the other way if the Supreme Court had only had a little more contact with poor white Southern unwed mothers.

    I like this to superdestroyer:

    The dearth of experiences you mention also provides diversity to campuses. When people with less world experience interact with people who have more experience, both groups benefit.

    Well, there you go. That explains your graf about the common application. Obviously the colleges need to know all your extracurricular activities, honors, work experience, &c. so that they can give preferences to the applicants who haven’t got any. They will doubtless “diversify” student bodies that have been relentless in racking up application-worthy credentials for the last twenty years or so. Of course, sooner or later the kids will figure it out, and start lying with a ringing “No!” whenever an admissions officer asks, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the school Math Club?” But it might work for a time.[/snark]

    And then:

    I think it would be a worthwhile goal to study whether admissions programs actually achieve diversity of perspectives. But, again, that does not mean that diversity programs should be dismantled or that colleges should not try to achieve diversity of perspectives.

    What you are saying is that it might be a “worthwhile goal” to try to find out at some point whether what we’ve been doing for thirty-plus years for one avowed purpose is in fact achieving that purpose. Meanwhile, we’d better keep on doing it.

    Re “affirmative action,” cheeky of you (but correct) to point out that it doesn’t mean “racial preferences.” It also doesn’t mean this:

    That’s what affirmative action means: taking a positive step to achieve diversity as opposed to just saying “forget about it, there’s nothing we can do.”

    Strictly speaking, yes, “affirmative action” might mean actively doing anything for any purpose. But historically speaking, no one was using it to describe any action meant to “increase diversity” until long after it had come to mean “preferential policies.” “Diversity” was never the primary point of those, and I submit that it still isn’t. State universities wouldn’t pretend it was were they not legally obliged to do so.

    For my part, I think “diversity of perspective” is on the whole valuable in education, but hardly “necessary.” I like the idea of a lottery for state schools very much, but “diversity” is hardly the only reason I do. Still, if diversity of perspective is your goal [mind that “if,” because I’ve used it every time], you’re as likely to get it by picking eligible students at random as any other way.

  13. Richard Nieporent May 25, 2006 at 12:00 am | | Reply

    Hull,

    My comment was not directed at you, but at the rational people on this site. I would not bother wasting my time arguing with someone like you because you are incapable of making a reasonable argument. Rather, you deliberately misconstrued what I said and then came back with a totally ridiculous response. What do math, physics and chemistry have to do with the Tuskegee Experiment? The answer of course is nothing. Since you couldn’t respond to my comment you tried to change the subject so that I would be on the defensive. But I will give you “credit” for something. It is not easy to take a benign comment and relate it to a horrendous act. But then again that is the only way someone like you knows how to argue. And by the way, next time try spelling my name correctly, or is even something as simple as that too difficult for you to do.

  14. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 25, 2006 at 12:35 am | | Reply

    Richard Nieporent,

    I didn’t point out Hull’s mangling of your name because I couldn’t think of a polite way to do it. (“I before E, except after C”?)

    I think you raised a perfectly legitimate (and, frankly, obvious) question, which is what value “diversity” is supposed to impart in math, the hard sciences, and engineering. So far as I could tell at Cal (where I graduated in mechanical engineering in 1988), the answer was “zero,” and the university acted accordingly. That is, my classmates were overwhelmingly Asian-American (especially in the advanced classes), and also overwhelmingly male. This mattered only to people who couldn’t have understood the subject matter anyway. The people actually in the classes were there to, well, learn stuff.

  15. Dom May 25, 2006 at 9:09 am | | Reply

    To Richard Nieporent:

    Please keep it sane. Hull’s comments are almost always quite rational and well researched. It is possible to disagree on John’s site without name-calling.

  16. Hull May 25, 2006 at 9:39 am | | Reply

    Michelle says:

    “Now, does anyone really think that any of this information is being used to increase “diversity” as such, in the way racial categories are used?”

    You are making an assumption about how the admissions process works across the country. You don’t know what degree race plays in admissions decisions. If you have evidence to support your contention about the degree to which race plays a role in admissions processes across the country, please share it.

    Tuskegee and Mr. NIEporent (or Dick as I’m sure his friends call him):

    “we know that it would be utter nonsense to believe that race, ethnicity or gender by itself contributes to our understanding of science or mathematics”

    Had one of the scientists involved been a minority or at least able to look at minorities as human beings instead of guinea pigs, the Tuskegee debacle might have been averted.

    Perhaps women MIGHT have some insight into reproductive science that men lack. Perhaps minorities MIGHT have some insight into studies involving minorities that non-minorities lack. Perhaps scientists from Uganda MIGHT have some insight into a study about Uganda that non-Ugandans lack.

    “I would not bother wasting my time arguing with someone like you because you are incapable of making a reasonable argument.”

    He says after twice responding to my comments ;) Please continue to “not argue” with me, it’s very entertaining.

  17. Richard Nieporent May 25, 2006 at 1:35 pm | | Reply

    Hull,

    That is exactly the asinine answer I expected from you which is why I stated that it is a waste of time arguing with you. Are you really incapable of understanding that the abstract concepts one studies in science and math has no relationship to race, sex or ethnicity? Explain to me how the solution of Fermat’s last theorem would benefit from diversity or the study of quantum gravity needs a woman’s perspective (as opposed to a physicist who happens to be a woman)? Actually, don’t try and explain it. When you bring up the Tuskegee experiment you clearly are not interested in a reasonable discussion. And to preempt your next non sequitur, no it wasn’t the lack of Japanese scientists on the Manhattan Project that led to the atomic bombing of Japan.

    Perhaps women MIGHT have some insight into reproductive science that men lack.

    If we are talking about the process of giving birth then of course women have insights or at least experiences that men don’t have. However, if we are talking about science the answer is a resounding no. Because women have ovaries does not mean that they have any more scientific knowledge about that organ than do men. Do you think woman have an inherent knowledge of the cellular structure and biological operation of the ovaries that men lack?

    Perhaps minorities MIGHT have some insight into studies involving minorities that non-minorities lack. Perhaps scientists from Uganda MIGHT have some insight into a study about Uganda that non-Ugandans lack.

    If you are talking about how it feels to grow up as a Black person in Chicago in the 1960s then I would concede that it would help to be Black (and to have grown up in Chicago in the 1960s). However, now you have shifted the discussion from the hard sciences. Since that was the subject of my original comment you are once more changing the subject. It is so fitting that you would bring up women and minority studies to attempt to make you point. For someone who argues for diversity, you use examples where diversity is not practiced. Just how many non-Blacks/Latinos/Women are involved in Blacks/Latinos/Women studies? The answer is almost none. I guess diversity is only important when it involves areas where minorities are “underrepresented”. Yes you are a hypocrite.

    Tuskegee and Mr. NIEporent (or Dick as I’m sure his friends call him):

    Actually it is Dr. Nieporent. And no, I go by Richard. The only Dick here is you. :)

  18. Hull May 25, 2006 at 2:39 pm | | Reply

    Oh, DOCTOR Nieporent. . . Hmm . . .

    “I would not bother wasting my time arguing with someone like you”

    At least you’re consistent.

    Are you really incapable of understanding that the abstract concepts one studies in science and math can be affected by bias?

    (see Eugenics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

    See also: Race and IQ

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

    See also: Scientific Racism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism)

    Doesn’t this “not arguing” tire you out DOCTOR Nieporent?

    As for not being interested in a reasonable discussion, your posts speak for themselves.

  19. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 25, 2006 at 3:59 pm | | Reply

    Oh, for heaven’s sake, kids, can’t you play nicely?

    Hull,

    Are you really incapable of understanding that the abstract concepts one studies in science and math can be affected by bias?

    [going on to instance articles on eugenics, race and IQ, and “scientific racism]

    Look, let’s stipulate that “science” has been contaminated by racism, and that this has done much harm. But let’s be clear what sciences we are talking about here. Hull every example you’ve cited in this thread involves fields of study that deal directly with human beings — medicine, sociology, anthropology, &c. Richard is talking about the hard sciences, and says quite correctly that different “perspectives” simply don’t make any difference there. There are obvious ethical and practical reasons for not discriminating against women or “underrepresented minorities” in math and hard sciences, but that such scholars bring some sort of special and valuable “perspective” to the table just isn’t one of them.

    In the “soft” sciences, obviously, things are different, because if your subject is humanity, you’re inevitably observed as well as observing. But to take Hull’s three examples:

    Perhaps women MIGHT have some insight into reproductive science that men lack.

    You come evidently from that planet where men are born but do not reproduce, while women bud, or something. I can’t think of any way in which actually being female would supply you with information you couldn’t get from interviewing women (or men!) with reproductive health difficulties. But never mind.

    Perhaps minorities MIGHT have some insight into studies involving minorities that non-minorities lack.

    Not impossible, especially if the people performing the “studies” are clueless about their subject. But this isn’t so much a reason for racial preferences as a reason to demand that anthropological studies of particular groups be read and critiqued by group members. That seems eminently reasonable to me, and likely to catch many errors and misunderstandings.

    Perhaps scientists from Uganda MIGHT have some insight into a study about Uganda that non-Ugandans lack.

    I don’t think it would be humanly possible to conduct any sort of study in Uganda without collaborating with Ugandans, and almost certainly with the Ugandan government. Anyone actually doing work in Africa will probably have realized this already, and will furthermore know that having studied alongside a Ugandan-American in soc. is not going to make a whit of difference as regards the practical problems.

    To me:

    You are making an assumption about how the admissions process works across the country. You don’t know what degree race plays in admissions decisions. If you have evidence to support your contention about the degree to which race plays a role in admissions processes across the country, please share it.

    I have the information nearly everyone has. I know that there is widespread worry about a “racial achievement gap” that is mirrored in SAT scores, class standings, dropout rates, and much else, but that many elite colleges, universities, and university systems have managed to keep “underrepresented minority” freshman enrollment levels at roughly the minority’s fraction of the US population. I have also the crude scheme UMich had to abandon, which was made public in the course of that case. I have also the cries of panic whenever anyone suggests removing racial or gender preferences from anything. Obviously someone thinks taking these preferences away will cause dramatic changes. If it isn’t you, why are you defending them?

  20. Richard Nieporent May 25, 2006 at 4:23 pm | | Reply

    Thanks, Michelle. You saved me the trouble of replying to Hull.

    Oh, for heaven’s sake, kids, can’t you play nicely?

    Please don’t make me have another “timeout” Ms. Thomson. I promise I will behave better next time! :)

  21. Cobra May 26, 2006 at 1:18 am | | Reply

    Let the record show that Cobra was NOT the cause of the above conflagration.

    Having said that…

    John writes:

    >>>”Racial discrimination is not wrong only in situations where it was the sole factor leading to preferring the preferred minority. Racial discrimination is wrong to whatever degree it occurs.”

    You already KNOW what my response to that statement is going to be, John, but for the benefit of the readers…

    If “racial discrimination is wrong to whatever degree it occurs” then where is the EQUAL zeal to address or confront the issue in OTHER aspects of American society besides college admittance to elite public institutions?

    Michelle writes:

    >>>”I have the information nearly everyone has. I know that there is widespread worry about a “racial achievement gap” that is mirrored in SAT scores, class standings, dropout rates, and much else, but that many elite colleges, universities, and university systems have managed to keep “underrepresented minority” freshman enrollment levels at roughly the minority’s fraction of the US population.”

    Oh, I definitely agree there are PLENTY of “racial gaps” in America.

    There’s a Racial Wage Gap

    There’s a “racial employment gap”…

    >>>”The number of unemployed persons (7.1 million) was essentially unchanged

    in April, and the unemployment rate held at 4.7 percent. The jobless rates

    for the major worker groups–adult men (4.2 percent), adult women (4.3 per-

    cent), teenagers (14.6 percent), whites (4.1 percent), blacks (9.4 percent),

    and Hispanics (5.4 percent)–showed little or no change over the month. The

    unemployment rate for Asians was 3.6 percent, not seasonally adjusted.”

    Racial Employment Gap

    There’s a “racial healthcare gap”…

    >>>”A new study released today finds wide discrepancies in the health care received by whites and by members of minority groups in this country. Moreover, the report prepared by the Institute of Medicine says the health care gap persists even when different racial groups have similar incomes and insurance coverage.

    Some of the elements of the racial gap: Breast cancer screenings: 71 percent of white patients got them, only 63 percent of black patients did. Heart disease: For every 100 white patients who had a procedure to clear an artery, only 74 black patients did. Diabetes: black patients are over three-and-a-half times more likely to have a limb amputated.”

    Racial Healthcare Gap

    You’re very well read, Michelle, so I understand that none of these “racial gaps” will surprise you. You also realize how many MORE of these “racial gaps” there are in America. The question I have for you and those against Affirmative Action is how would you eliminate these “racial gaps?”

    That’s a question for those of you who consider those “non-SAT score gaps” a problem in the first place.

    –Cobra

  22. Hull May 26, 2006 at 2:04 pm | | Reply

    First, Michelle, I think it is admirable that you would come in to defend the Doctor when he could not defend himself.

    You have a point that diversity may not be as necessary in the “hard sciences”, but how much of employment and education is covered by the “hard sciences” (particularly considering that you are excluding biological sciences)? So, physics and math and a few other fields do not benefit significantly from diversity (or so you argue). That encompasses a small fraction of education and employment and is by no means evidence that “being different [does not] provide any benefit” as the esteemed doctor argues. His argument (before he flew off into hysterics) was that diversity provides no benefit because the “hard sciences” do not gain from diversity. That is simply not true.

    In response to my claim that you are stereotyping admissions processes across the country as heavily influenced by race, you argue:

    “I know that there is widespread worry about a “racial achievement gap” that is mirrored in SAT scores, class standings, dropout rates, and much else, but that many elite colleges, universities, and university systems have managed to keep “underrepresented minority” freshman enrollment levels at roughly the minority’s fraction of the US population.”

    However, “Thomas J. Kane, who teaches public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, conducted a study that showed that about 60 percent of America’s institutions of higher learning admit nearly all who apply and therefore don’t give preference to any particular race.”

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06046/655218.stm

    Therefore we’re talking about at most 40% of schools POSSIBLY using race as an overriding factor in admissions. So, no admissions officers do NOT give racial preference often as you and others have suggested. Further, you still have not provided any concrete evidence (aside from conjecture and leaps of logic) that proves that race is an overriding factor in admissions processes at schools other than the two or three you and John mentioned which have lost law suits on this matter.

  23. Hull May 26, 2006 at 2:26 pm | | Reply

    Sorry, one last point. You asked:

    “Obviously someone thinks taking these preferences away will cause dramatic changes. If it isn’t you, why are you defending them?”

    I defend diversity and civil rights because I think it is the right thing to do. I think arguments against so-called racial preference (the term itself is misleading) are a pretext for efforts to keep minorities from advancing in society. I think there is a long history of racism and invidious discrimination in this country and as arguments against this behavior become more complex, so do argumetns in favor of it. So when I see arguments for “State’s rights” or an end to affirmative action or race and IQ, I see these as continuations of a strain of thought that is damaging to society and, accordingly, I argue against them.

  24. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 27, 2006 at 1:10 pm | | Reply

    Hull,

    I wasn’t “defending” Richard Nieporent so much as clarifying what he was obviously trying to say. There really is no argument for “diversity” in the hard sciences, and you haven’t even attempted to provide one. You are quite right that these are a small portion of the offerings of any university, but I think Richard is correct that a math class doesn’t gain or lose if you change its ethnic ratios.

    Re admissions processes: I used the word “elite” on purpose, you know. Obviously there are scads of schools that are essentially open-admissions. They are admirable institutions, but they aren’t what we were talking about. More or less anyone who can fill out an application form can get some sort of college education in the US, provided she’s willing to pay for it; the question really is what it’s worth. And obviously the elite-school diplomas are worth a great deal more than are those from completely unselective institutions. You evidently would not take the Ivy League’s abandoning racial preferences as no big deal, just because fully 40% of universities in the US admit anyone with a pulse, regardless of race.

    Further, you still have not provided any concrete evidence (aside from conjecture and leaps of logic) that proves that race is an overriding factor in admissions processes at schools other than the two or three you and John mentioned which have lost law suits on this matter.

    Whatever you say, Hull. I think that wherever there’s a massive credential gap between one segment of a student population and the remainder, a thumb has been applied to the scale. And when the reactions to proposals to remove the thumb are alarmed cries that URM students will disappear altogether, I can only assume that someone really thinks that only racial discrimination will get URM students into top schools. You can call that “conjecture and leaps of logic” if you like; I don’t mind.

  25. Michelle Dulak Thomson May 27, 2006 at 2:59 pm | | Reply

    Hull,

    Sorry for not replying sooner; I had posting problems. The post above this was written early yesterday. So I am only now addressing your last.

    I defend diversity and civil rights because I think it is the right thing to do. I think arguments against so-called racial preference (the term itself is misleading) are a pretext for efforts to keep minorities from advancing in society. I think there is a long history of racism and invidious discrimination in this country and as arguments against this behavior become more complex, so do argumetns in favor of it. So when I see arguments for “State’s rights” or an end to affirmative action or race and IQ, I see these as continuations of a strain of thought that is damaging to society and, accordingly, I argue against them.

    Hmmm. The race-and-IQ thing is obviously racist by definition, but it would go away if we would just stop talking about races, which you are evidently not prepared to do. State’s rights are not about slavery; they’re about treating states as states rather than as bureaucratic jurisdictions.

    And you upbraided me up-thread for using “affirmative action” when I should have said “racial preferences.” I should say in response that no measure in any state would stop “affirmative action” in the sense you define it yourself. No one is proposing banning public university systems opening their doors to students of all states on an equal basis, or forbidding them admitting students, and assigning them to campuses, by lot. And this is what you call “affirmative action.”

    I repeat that there would not be any controversy about removing racial preferences if there were no expectation of a drastic change were they removed.

    I would like to know, by the way, what you mean about “racial preference” being a misleading term. I’d say that if you are boosting a student’s admission chances substantially because she’s said she’s Black on her application, you are giving her a preference because of her race. I don’t know how else to put it.

  26. Cobra May 27, 2006 at 3:34 pm | | Reply

    Michelle writes:

    >>>”Re admissions processes: I used the word “elite” on purpose, you know. Obviously there are scads of schools that are essentially open-admissions. They are admirable institutions, but they aren’t what we were talking about. More or less anyone who can fill out an application form can get some sort of college education in the US, provided she’s willing to pay for it; the question really is what it’s worth. And obviously the elite-school diplomas are worth a great deal more than are those from completely unselective institutions.”

    This is the kind of honest statement I’ve been waiting for an Anti-Affirmative Action type to post. Thank you, Michelle, because at last we’re dealing with the heart of the matter–who gets to have ADVANTAGES in American society. Elite public institutions USED to present advantages for overwhelmingly white student populations. Now that the overwhelming majority has been reduced by single-digit percentage points, there is a vociferous conservative call to arms against Affirmative Action, where there is NO clarion call to address gaps in the quality of K-12 education among those conservatives complain most about.

    You probably didn’t intend your statement to take on a Euro-American Elite Education Entitlement, because you’re very quick to discuss the proliferation of Asian-Americans. However, there are indeed Asian-Americans who question the E.E.E.E agenda and the Anti-Affirmative Action movement:

    >>>”Asian Americans are told by conservatives that affirmative action hurts us. Yet even as efforts are being made to dismantle affirmative action for racial minorities, no efforts are made to dismantle the preferences given to whites that hurt Asian Americans. It is within this context that Asian Americans must decide if we will let ourselves be used as pawns in the struggle over affirmative action.”

    Shaky alliance with Asian-Americans

    –Cobra

  27. John Rosenberg May 27, 2006 at 8:06 pm | | Reply

    … I think arguments against so-called racial preference (the term itself is misleading) are a pretext for efforts to keep minorities from advancing in society. I think there is a long history of racism and invidious discrimination in this country and as arguments against this behavior become more complex, so do argumetns in favor of it. So when I see arguments for “State’s rights” or an end to affirmative action or race and IQ, I see these as continuations of a strain of thought that is damaging to society and, accordingly, I argue against them.

    Hull – First, what exactly is “misleading” about the term “racial preferences”? How would you define a policy that provides advantages to some individuals based on their race? Since racial preferences are a form of racial discrimination, I myself think that “racial discrimination” is a broader, more inclusive term, but “racial preferences” is perfectly descriptive of any selection program where race (however defined) provides some advantage to the applicant.

    Second, if you really believe that “arguments against so-called racial preference … are a pretext for efforts to keep minorities from advancing in society,” then you believe either a) that those of us here who disagree with you are hypocritical racists or b) we are honest (if misguided) folks, but we are unique, i.e., all the other people who believe what we do are hypocritical racists (hypocrticial if they say they believe in equal rights, etc.)

    Third, no one here disputes the existence of racism, past and (to a much lesser degree) present. But as presented here you’ve adopted a position that is impervious to reason, logic, or evidence: you argue (and here receive little dispute from me) 1) that the past was filled with arguments and policies whose racism was implicit in and revealed by their singling out minorities for special and unfavorable treatment; and 2) the present is filled with arguments (and some policies) whose racism is implicit in and revealed by their insistence on treating minorities the same as everyone else, i.e., without regard to their race. Thus it is racist to treat minorities with regard to their race, and it is racist to treat minorities without regard to their race.

    If you are convinced that literally everything (A and not-A) is racist and that those of us who argue against racial preferences are hypocritical racists, then it’s not clear why you bother to argue at all. In any event, I have found that arguments involving assertions that people who disagree with one’s own position don’t really believe what they’re saying, that their arguments are “pretexts” for their real (and usually evil) goals, never succeed in persuading anyone, including curious but undecided observers.

  28. John Rosenberg May 27, 2006 at 9:32 pm | | Reply

    Cobra writes:

    … at last we’re dealing with the heart of the matter–who gets to have ADVANTAGES in American society. Elite public institutions USED to present advantages for overwhelmingly white student populations. Now that the overwhelming majority has been reduced by single-digit percentage points, there is a vociferous conservative call to arms against Affirmative Action, where there is NO clarion call to address gaps in the quality of K-12 education among those conservatives complain most about.

    First, it’s simply not true that there are “NO clarion calls” etc. to address the achievement gap in K-12 education. Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, to take just one example, are among the most eloquent and outspoken critics of racial preferences, and they’ve recently written a book, No Excuses: Closing The Racial Gap in Learning, which is nothing if not a “clarion call” to repair the damage K-12 education is causing minority students.

    But moving on, if “the heart of the matter” is who has “ADVANTAGES,” and if the justification for racial preferences in admissions etc. is some combination of retribution or atonement or corrective for the unjust distribution of ADVANTAGES in the past, then affirmative action admissions, hiring, etc., really is a woefully trivial response. Logically, what we really ought to do is enslave whites for about 250 years, then segregate them and discriminate against them for 100 years or so. Failing that, as a fall-back remedy we could generalize from the decision in NAACP v. Allen, 340 F.Supp. 703 (M. D. Ala. 1972), discussed here, and require the Ivy League et. al. to admit “one Negro [student] for each white [student]” until proportional representation has been achieved. (I have, of course, substituted “student” for “trooper,” the state troopers involved in the original litigation.)

    Of course, some weak sisters will whine that we couldn’t do that because slavery was, well, wrong, but they’re just hung up on outmoded colorblind principle.

  29. Cobra May 28, 2006 at 12:38 am | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”First, it’s simply not true that there are “NO clarion calls” etc. to address the achievement gap in K-12 education. Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, to take just one example, are among the most eloquent and outspoken critics of racial preferences, and they’ve recently written a book, No Excuses: Closing The Racial Gap in Learning, which is nothing if not a “clarion call” to repair the damage K-12 education is causing minority students.”

    Writing a book is NOT a clarion call, IMHO. It’s a self-centred, hopefully profit-making venture in publishing. Anybody with a word-processor and Kinko’s email address can be a “published” author.

    I’m talking about a passionate movement for change via legislation. If you need a proper example, simply reference the MCRI, and similiar schemes where you have ardent conservative activists armed with think-tank dollars determined to literally “change the face” of higher education in America.

    John writes:

    >>>”But moving on, if “the heart of the matter” is who has “ADVANTAGES,” and if the justification for racial preferences in admissions etc. is some combination of retribution or atonement or corrective for the unjust distribution of ADVANTAGES in the past, then affirmative action admissions, hiring, etc., really is a woefully trivial response.”

    You forgot the PRESENT “unjust distribution of advantages.”

    You keep forgetting Cobra Argument #1–American society is still racist and discriminatory, especially against African-Americans. That’s why I take the trouble to post sourced material illuminating this very reality. Sourced material that stands undisputed. As far as “retribution” goes, America as a nation got off pretty easy. It welched on the 40 Acres and a Mule deal, and as far as treaties with Native Americans go, well…

    I know you’re being sarcastic about the white slavery deal, but exactly what DID America do to compensate, attone, or take corrective action for CENTURIES of slavery, a Century of Jim Crow, and ON-GOING discriminatory treatment in hiring, wages, health care, lending, housing and the justice system?

    You can claim that Affirmative Action is a “woefully trivial response” (which makes ponderous the nuclear level assault upon it by you and other conservatives), but what is the CONSERVATIVE response for centuries of America Apartheid and current discrimination? A “color-blind” theory that has NEVER been practiced in American History? A “color blind” theory that cannot be enforced?

    –Cobra

  30. John Rosenberg May 28, 2006 at 1:40 am | | Reply

    … but what is the CONSERVATIVE response for centuries of America Apartheid and current discrimination? A “color-blind” theory that has NEVER been practiced in American History? A “color blind” theory that cannot be enforced?

    Yes. Enforcing the law requiring that all individuals be treated without regard to race. Cobra, you and the people who agree with you are the biggest obstacle to colorblind treatement today.

  31. Cobra May 28, 2006 at 12:52 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”Yes. Enforcing the law requiring that all individuals be treated without regard to race. Cobra, you and the people who agree with you are the biggest obstacle to colorblind treatement today.”

    Come on, John. You’ve fallen into the same euphemisms politicians fall into whenever they face a problem that has complications. They play the “enforcement” card, whether the issue is illegal immigration, campaign finance reform, pollution, drug trafficking, education reform, CAFE standards, etc.

    The problem is, that what sounds good on paper or in a stump speech doesn’t translate to reality very well.

    There not only has to be a WILL to “enforce” something, but a proactive strategy backed by MONEY, otherwise it becomes a useless unfunded mandate.

    However, you seem to believe that people who agree with me are the problem. I don’t have any control of the executive branch at the local, state or federal level. The people who DO have control of the executive branches (the ENFORCEMENT branches), at least at the federal level are REPUBLICANS.

    Given the deluge of data and research on the discriminatory treatment received by primarily African-Americans TODAY, your aim is way off if you feel I should be the target of your criticism.

    When you address Hull in this statement:

    >>>”If you are convinced that literally everything (A and not-A) is racist and that those of us who argue against racial preferences are hypocritical racists, then it’s not clear why you bother to argue at all.”

    You see, I believe that you can argue against racial preferences and NOT be a racist. You’re a prime example, IMHO. I also believe that you fail to acknowlege that there are MANY racists in America who are on your side of the argument, and even noted Republicans agree with my positions on “selective outrage.”

    Colin Powell:

    >>>”Q: This [GOP] crowd was cheering you when you said you should support affirmative action. This party has rejected it.

    A: I wasn’t arguing affirmative action. I was arguing inclusion. I used affirmative action as an example of the mistrust that exists in the black community. It leaves a taste in the black community that says, are you serious about me or are you using me as a punching bag? Bush says he wants to be an inclusive president. I was saying, you’ve got to get behind him.

    Q: You said this commitment, this openness to minorities, needs to be a sustained effort every day for real, you said.

    A: By “for real,” I meant we have to get rid of the old Southern strategy of 25 years ago of pandering to certain constituencies at the expense of minorities. We have to make sure that is a consistent piece of our strategy and that we are working on it all the time, not just once every four years have an event. I don’t want just the image of inclusiveness but policies that go to inclusiveness.

    Source: ABCnews.com Aug 1, 2000

    >>>”We must understand the cynicism that is created in the black community when, for example, some in our party miss no opportunity to roundly and loudly condemn affirmative action that helped a few thousand black kids get an education, but you hardly hear a whimper when it’s affirmative action for lobbyists who load our federal tax code with preferences for special interests. It doesn’t work. You can’t make that case.”

    Source: Speech at the Republican convention Jul 30, 2000

    >>>”And where discrimination still exists or where the scars of past discrimination contaminate the present, we must not close our eyes to it, declare a level playing field, and hope it will go away by itself. It did not in the past. It will not in the future.”

    Source: Speech to the Republican National Convention Aug 12, 1996

    General Admission

    The General is right on point here, IMHO. He argues against the “ignorance is bliss” strategy on race.

    –Cobra

  32. John Rosenberg May 28, 2006 at 8:21 pm | | Reply

    Well, all I can say is that it’s fortunate (for you) that those racist Americans who lack the desire or the will to enforce non-discrimination laws continue to give you special benefits because of your race and lower standards for you everywhere you apply to give you a leg up. And I’m sure you’re right: those employers and admissions officers who are so adamant about being able to give you special race-based advantages would begin discriminating against you the minute they were told that they were no longer allowed to give you special preferences.

  33. Cobra May 29, 2006 at 12:02 am | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”Well, all I can say is that it’s fortunate (for you) that those racist Americans who lack the desire or the will to enforce non-discrimination laws continue to give you special benefits because of your race and lower standards for you everywhere you apply to give you a leg up.”

    1) How does ending Affirmative Action “inspire” discrimination law enforcement?

    2) If a white person with a felony in his/her past has better odds of getting hired than a law-abiding African American WITH Affirmative Action in place right now,(Devah Pager Study) what pressing societal need is being fulfilled by ending it other than increasing white ex-felon opportunities?

    3) Most conservatives and Republicans are for ending Affirmative Action, and even FURTHER in some cases…like Prof. Richard Epstein who writes in “Forbidden Grounds”…

    >>>”Professor Epstein’s conclusion is that the only solution is to repeal practically all the antidiscrimination laws and return to a principle of freedom of association. The present laws, he says, are based on the idea that “forced association is better than a strong norm of freedom of association…. The modern civil rights law has led to a dangerous form of government coercion that in the end threatens to do more than strangle the operation of labor and employment markets. The modern civil rights laws are a new form of imperialism that threatens the political liberty and intellectual freedom of us all.”

    Professor Epstein concludes, “My study of the employment discrimination laws has persuaded me of the bedrock social importance of the principles of individual autonomy and freedom of association.”

    The Slippery Slope

    Well, I may be from New Jersey, but even I can figure out it’s pretty hard to enforce anti-discrimiation laws if they’ve been repealed. Forgive me if I don’t want to buy a ticket on the express train to 1953. Are you an advocate of Professor Epstein’s strategies, John?

    –Cobra

  34. Garrick Williams May 29, 2006 at 12:50 am | | Reply

    I wrote most of this post the other day when the comments were messed up, but it’s still apt. I haven’t posted here in awhile but I’ve kept up on reading it and my typing fingers are getting itchy. I apologize in advance for the absurd length.

    Cobra:

    It seems like lately you’ve stopped arguing against the substance of John’s posts and currently rely on accusing him (and everyone else who disagrees with you) of ‘selective outrage’. This argument is a non-starter, and I’m surprised to see you leaning on it. For one, John has *never* stated that racism against minorities, or ‘wage gaps’, etc, do not exist. He has only argued that these problems do not justify the use of further racial discrimination to correct them. John has often stated that, where discrimination is proven, it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (and yes, these laws have not always been enforced fully (and other times they’ve been enforced overzealously) but this does nothing to justify affirmative action. Stop pretending it does). John is under no obligation to post about anti-black discrimination… it’s his blog. But beyond that, I would imagine he sees little room for argument (and therefore little reason to post) on that issue- he (and the vast majority of people in the country) already believe that discrimination against minorities is wrong. What is (sadly) controversial, and therefore worth advocating, is the notion that discriminating against white people is equally wrong.

    In fact it is you who are guilty of ‘selective outrage’. Your argument basically boils down to ‘Discriminating against white people is okay as long as black people are being discriminated against’. If you truly wish to avoid selective outrage, then you should be against ‘affirmative action’ in its current incarnation of racial preferences. You are of course under no obligation to loudly advocate the downfall of affirmative action, but certainly, if your outrage is not selective, you must believe that it is wrong? John has already stated that he is against racial discrimination in any form. What’s selective about that? More importantly, how is your position of ‘some discrimination is okay and other discrimination is evil’ less ‘selective’?

    On to your links. First, NONE of them provides any proof that the ‘gaps’ they illuminate are caused by discrimination. You confuse correlation with causation- merely stating that more people with dark skin are unemployed is not ipso facto proof that dark skin causes unemployment. Far from a ‘deluge of data and research’, you merely set up a nice false causation. Yes, certain minority groups, including African-Americans, are more likely to be poor. Yes, this is a problem that needs addressing. And yes, some people are racists (and not all of them are white). But you have never provided any proof of this vast white man conspiracy that apparently exists for the sole purpose of actively keeping blacks from succeeding. There is also a distinct lack of evidence that this apparent conspiracy by the good old boys club justifies discriminating against white high school seniors.

    The researchers in ‘health care gap’ go out of their way to state that they do not believe racism or discrimination is the cause of the problem. Rather, it is caused by a lack of understanding of the physiological and cultural differences between patients and doctors. This lack of knowledge forces doctors to rely upon snap ‘stereotyped’ judgements in stressful situations. This can be solved by education – it does not require discriminating against white MDs. Note that the same problem vis-à-vis white patients would likely exist for black doctors who treated almost exclusively black patients- this doesn’t make them racist.

    The ‘wage gap’ is especially misleading. What collectors of such data (it’s often used to claim ‘gender discrimination’ as well) will often have you believe is that minorities (or women) are ‘being paid less for doing the same job’. This is NOT shown by the data, which only shows MEDIAN income. Now, if a black man makes less than a white man in the same position, with identical experience and seniority, then you can consider discrimination. But if a white CEO makes more than a black janitor, you cannot call that racism or sexism on face value. (In fact, a recent study indicated that women actually make slightly more than men in the same jobs). The fact that blacks are more likely than whites to be janitors rather than CEOs is troubling, but likely exists for many reasons other than racial discrimination.

    Both the wage gap and employment gap are, I believe, fundamentally socioeconomic rather than entirely racial. Again, none of your evidence can prove that these ‘gaps’ are caused by racism. The writers of these studies will probably conjecture that it is caused by racism, but then it’s hardly surprising that they find racism when they set out with the purpose of finding it. If racism is the major cause of these gaps then how is the success of Asians, Jews, Cubans (esp. relative to Mexicans), Eastern Europeans, and other traditionally discriminated against groups explained? (and don’t argue that blacks were the only ones enslaved- Eastern Europeans (sp. Russians) were enslaved as serfs until 1861) I know the argument is oft repeated, but I’ve never heard a good answer to it.

    The problem will not be solved by focusing on racism or by discriminating against whites and ‘properly represented minorities’ in college admissions and employment. Rather, the problem must be solved in the elementary and high schools. We must also encourage a culture that emphasizes the importance of education among the ‘under represented’ minorities. Affirmative action, where used, should be based on socioeconomic rather than pigmentary factors (I’ve known my share of privileged black kids and underprivileged white kids- actually, there are twice as many whites as blacks living below the poverty line, which makes it especially confusing that ‘underprivileged’ is used interchangeably with ‘black’ by affirmative action advocates). I have yet to hear a convincing argument that explains why socioeconomic affirmative action would not be as or more effective at improving opportunities for underprivileged students (well, it would be worth less politically to the Democrats, so that probably has something to due with it).

    Even if we concede that there is a great deal of discrimination in the workspace (this is debatable, since the ‘studies’ that ‘prove’ this were usually set up with the express purpose of revealing such discrimination and are therefore flawed) how does affirmative action in college admissions address this? College admissions are certainly not discriminatory against blacks, since administrators go out of their way to give preference to blacks. Even in the workspace, there are at least as many (probably more) businesses that voluntarily go out of their way to hire blacks than there are that go out of their way to not hire them.

    But regardless of whether or not these gaps are caused by racism, how do they justify discriminating against white, Asian, and Indian high school seniors? Cobra, would you be willing to look an 18 year old kid who’s dreamed of attending the U for years that you’re rejecting him because his skin is too light? That he is incapable of contributing to the college culture because his great-great-great-grandaddy was from Poland and not Ethiopia? Because, fundamentally, that’s what ‘affirmative action’ says is okay, and you must be willing to make that statement to fully support affirmative action.

    You say that there has never been a ‘clarion call’ for improving K-12 education (which you follow up with a pretty harsh definition of ‘clarion call’ that essentially means ‘no advocacy that exists counts as a clarion call since that would hurt my overstated argument’). Has it ever occurred to you that this lack of advocacy for K-12 education may in fact be largely due to the focus on affirmative action by the political left? What if all the effort and capital currently applied towards maintaining and advocating affirmative action, a deeply flawed policy that by its very nature relies upon racial discrimination to work, was instead applied towards improving underperforming schools? What if the hundreds of thousands of dollars that U of M has thrown away supporting a system that, after 30 years, has achieved NONE of its stated aims, as your statistics so clearly point out, was instead spent on teaching underprivileged kids to read and write and do math as well as their better prepared peers in wealthier districts?

    The sad reality is that people support affirmative action because it’s easy. It’s easy to support AA and pat yourself on the back for being a wonderful, progressive human being. It’s easy to tell black and Hispanic voters that you’re oh so much better than the evil Republicans because you support stickin’ it to the white man. In the meantime, the real cause of the problem, poor primary education that breeds a self-perpetuating culture of poverty, is ignored because it’s hard to fix and doesn’t score any more political points than writing an amicus curiae against Jennifer Gratz. Never mind the fact that affirmative action feeds directly into this culture of underachievement by telling young minority students that they are incapable of succeeding unless they are given special consideration due to their skin color. In this regard, the modern affirmative action proponents are a lot like that peculiar breed of patronizing abolitionists of old who believed that, on the one hand, slavery was wrong, but on the other, blacks were fundamentally inferior.

    You also argue that ‘nothing has been done’ to atone for slavery. This is just silly. Has anything been done to atone for European serfdom? Have any Egyptians atoned for enslaving the Jews? No, and for good reason- all those involved are long dead. Is it okay to punish all Muslims because a few decided to blow stuff up? Was imprisoning all Japanese Americans okay? Of course not. When Hispanics are the majority race, will it be right to give special treatment to white students to make sure there’s a ‘critical mass’ of them in schools? Absolutely not. Yet affirmative action is no better than demanding reparations from all Muslims, or insisting that every Egyptian make payments to Jewish families. It does nothing to erase the fact of what happened, and it punishes the wrong people. The BEST that the government can do is make everyone *equal* under the law. The government can only remove the source of injustice (laws that treat some unequally). It is up to the individual to make the most of the opportunities that that equality provides. Anything more is the sort of social engineering that’s doomed to fail.

    You claim that enforcement of the Civil Rights Act won’t work if it’s unfunded Yet, if we don’t enforce the laws we have already, what the heck’s the point of making more that are also going to be unenforced? You rail against Why don’t we take all the money being used to support affirmative action and instead use it on prosecuting legitimate discriminators (of any color) and improving K-12 education?

    You say that

    On to Hull:

    Your argument that 60% of institutes of higher learning admit just about everyone shoots itself in the foot. If that is the case, than there are already opportunities for students of all colors to get an education, there should be nothing discriminatory about handing out spots at the toughest schools to the most academically qualified, and there’s no immediate discriminatory explanation for why so few minorities attend college. It always bothered me that people seem to think they are doing an unprepared kid a favor by sticking him in a school he’s not academically ready for. In fact, the continuing achievement gap between black and Hispanic vs. white and Asian students can logically be presumed to be exacerbated by the practice of accepting students with lesser academic qualifications (it’s certainly not racism, since these same schools bend over backwards to not only let dark-hued students in, but also give them special academic resources, advisors, clubs, and sometimes even facilities). Someone will probably twist this and say I’m claiming underrepresented minorities are incapable of learning- not at all. I am merely stating that having extra melanin isn’t going to make up for a mediocre high school career when it comes time to take the physics exam. I suspect that if you admitted white or Asian students with the same academic qualifications as the current ‘affirmative action’ admits, you’d have a similar problem of low achievement among that group.

    I disagree with Dr. Nieporent when he claims that there is no benefit to diversity. There is a distinct advantage to being exposed to a wide range of persectives. The problem is that colleges focus only on pigmentary diversity while actually discouraging politically incorrect viewpoints. So we have students of a lot of different colors all being told to think the same way.

    Also, as to the extent of racial preferences, a recent Michigan Daily article claimed the minority enrollment would drop 45% at U of M if the MCRI were to pass. So, 45% of minorities currently enrolled would not have been accepted if their race had not been considered. 45% of black and Hispanic students would have been rejected if they had been white or Asian. If this number is in fact true, then how can it claimed that race is only a minor factor? It may be ‘one factor among many’, but 45% seems like an awful big factor.

    Your statement than any opposition to affirmative action was based on invidious discrimination was frankly offensive. How dare you assume that, simply because I or someone else doesn’t think that picking people based on the shade of their skin is a good idea, we want to keep minorities from advancing? Does that make sense to you? Because if it does and wasn’t merely hyperbole, I really worry.

    Finally, please explain what is ‘misleading’ about the phrase racial preference. Affirmative action policies, as they exist today, primarily work by *preferring* one candidate over another based on their *race*. That’s certainly less ambiguous than ‘affirmative action’. You can argue that racial preferences are justified, but to argue that they aren’t used in a world where U of M went to the Supreme Court to defend their policy of giving 20 points for being black is just plain silly.

    P.S. John, your last two posts were brilliant. It has always confused me that people seem to believe that all the places that *voluntarily* conduct affirmative action would immediately become die hard racists the instant racial preferences were outlawed.

    P.P.S. Cobra, your last statement is ridiculous. You should really read this page: [link removed 10/1/2017]
    before equating John with Prof. Epstein.

  35. John Rosenberg May 29, 2006 at 8:39 am | | Reply

    Garrick – Welcome back, and thanks for your long post and kind words. Needless to say, I agree with everything in it!

    Cobra – Well, there’s always the possibility that the white ex-felon is better qualified and that’s why he got the job. If he wasn’t, and the black applicant was not hired because of his race, that’s wrong, and illegal. Your preferred solution — hiring the black applicant because of his race — is also wrong and illegal (unless, of course, he were an applicant to a college where he was admitted because of his race as “one of many factors” in a “holistic” review).

    I’m glad you brought up Prof. Epstein’s criticism of civil rights laws. I don’t agree with him, but his position does have the virtues of consistency and principle. His principle — that freedom of association is a more fundamental right than the right to be free from racial discrimination — is not one that I share, and I think it is not appropriate for employment or education or government agencies of any sort. But I do appreciate consistency, which you already know from my many criticisms of your lack of it.

    In fact, I think your position would be much more coherent if you endorsed Prof. Epstein’s call for the repeal of anti-discrimination laws. You already do so in practice, by urging the disregard of their clearly stated application to “all persons,” not just blacks. If you want the clear, unfettered legal right to discriminate on the basis of race, you should emulate Prof. Epstein’s courage and call for the repeal of all anti-discrimination laws.

  36. John Rosenberg May 29, 2006 at 11:02 am | | Reply

    Hull has questioned a couple of times just how extensive racial preferences are. Turns out I’ve written about this issue several times but haven’t had time to search for them. As it happens, however, I just run across one of them, which suggests the extent of preference in admission to the University of Virginia. It presents numbers showing that despite average SAT scores that are some 200 points lower than the average for the entering class (and, hence, even further below the average for non-preferred admittees), 57.1% of black applicants were admitted compared to 29.4% of non-black applicants. 7% of the applicants for the freshman class were black, but 12.3% of those admitted were black.

    And you think “racial preference” is not a good description of what is going on?

  37. Cobra May 29, 2006 at 3:01 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”I’m glad you brought up Prof. Epstein’s criticism of civil rights laws. I don’t agree with him, but his position does have the virtues of consistency and principle. His principle — that freedom of association is a more fundamental right than the right to be free from racial discrimination — is not one that I share, and I think it is not appropriate for employment or education or government agencies of any sort. But I do appreciate consistency, which you already know from my many criticisms of your lack of it.”

    Oh, I disagree John. I’ve been extremely consistant in my arguments.

    Cobra Argument #1–America is still racist against African-Americans, Native-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and other non-European American groups. I’ve been unwavering in that statement for years.

    Cobra Argument #2–Anti-Affirmative Action types are selective in their outrage over discrimination. I’ve been steadfastly consistant in that argument as well.

    John writes:

    >>>”It presents numbers showing that despite average SAT scores that are some 200 points lower than the average for the entering class (and, hence, even further below the average for non-preferred admittees), 57.1% of black applicants were admitted compared to 29.4% of non-black applicants. 7% of the applicants for the freshman class were black, but 12.3% of those admitted were black.

    And you think “racial preference” is not a good description of what is going on?”

    You’re going back to the “SAT means more than everything” strategy. Ask Jennifer Gratz how that applied in HER case. And let’s not forget a certain commander-in-chief who was admitted to Yale with SAT scores 150 points below the average Yale matriculant. Where’s the outrage?

    Now, onto Garrick. Garrick, I have an agreement with John. If I won’t fill his cgi-bin with voluminous studies on undisputed studies and figures on race discrimination against non-whites, he won’t edit down my posts to simple sentences like “Cobra Argument #1″. (I use it anyway now because I like the way it reads) However, when you make statements like this:

    >>>”It seems like lately you’ve stopped arguing against the substance of John’s posts and currently rely on accusing him (and everyone else who disagrees with you) of ‘selective outrage’. This argument is a non-starter, and I’m surprised to see you leaning on it.”

    Now you know the genesis of the tact. A couple of years ago, it wasn’t odd to see a 4 or 5 page printed post from me with EEOC statistical analysis, historical documentation and direct pull quotes supporting my own arguments or refuting those of others.

    However, apparently, those days are over. I rely on brief quotations with links now, and try, in the quest for brevity, to boil down my arguments to the root.

    Yes–I DO believe that many Anti-Affirmative-Action types employ “selective outrage”. When there are statements like this:

    >>>”You claim that enforcement of the Civil Rights Act won’t work if it’s unfunded Yet, if we don’t enforce the laws we have already, what the heck’s the point of making more that are also going to be unenforced? You rail against Why don’t we take all the money being used to support affirmative action and instead use it on prosecuting legitimate discriminators (of any color) and improving K-12 education?”

    Almost all of your arguments are based upon this “we” principle. Who is “we?” The white majority? It is only in the past generation that people who look like me are even considered first class citizens at least on PAPER. The executive, legislative or judicial branches United States government are NOT controlled by people who look like me. They are controlled, almost as exclusively as back in 1776, by people who look like YOU, and that’s been apparent in the way this country has been run.

    >>>”Access to United States citizenship has repeatedly been restricted by race, beginning with the Naturalization Act of 1790 which refused naturalization to “non-whites.” Other efforts include the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1924 National Origins Act. While officially prohibited, U.S. officials continue to differentially apply laws on illegal immigration depending on national origin (essentially declining to enforce immigration laws against European who overstay their visas) and racial appearance (differentially awarding visas to foreign nationals based on race).

    Wealth Creation

    Some of the institutions of wealth creation amongst American citizens were open exclusively to whites, notably land distributed under the Homestead Act and other settlement efforts in the West. Similar differentials applied to the Social Security Act (which excluded agricultural workers, a sector that then included most black workers), rewards to military officers, and the educational benefits offered returning soldiers after World War II.”

    The Reality of Race and America

    The fix is in, Garrick. I’m supposed to believe in a benevolent “we” (re:white majority in power) to suddenly take interest in raising minorities to the level of “equality” when the SAME white majority designed the anti-minority system in the first place? Who’s kidding whom, Garrick?

    How far do I have to go, and how much do I have to show you before you understand that the United States is a system designed by and for the perpetuation of white male dominance? This belies your statement:

    >>>”And yes, some people are racists (and not all of them are white). But you have never provided any proof of this vast white man conspiracy that apparently exists for the sole purpose of actively keeping blacks from succeeding.”

    I give you American History sir. This is what some professors call “white privilege”.

    Prof. Robert Jensen writes:

    >>>”Here’s what white privilege sounds like:

    I am sitting in my University of Texas office, talking to a very bright and very conservative white student about affirmative action in college admissions, which he opposes and I support.

    The student says he wants a level playing field with no unearned advantages for anyone. I ask him whether he thinks that in the United States being white has advantages. Have either of us, I ask, ever benefited from being white in a world run mostly by white people? Yes, he concedes, there is something real and tangible we could call white privilege.

    So, if we live in a world of white privilege–unearned white privilege–how does that affect your notion of a level playing field? I ask.

    He paused for a moment and said, “That really doesn’t matter.”

    That statement, I suggested to him, reveals the ultimate white privilege: the privilege to acknowledge you have unearned privilege but ignore what it means.”

    White Privilege explained

    Garrick, you don’t have to think in a racist manner regarding non-whites. You don’t have to think about race at all. That’s another benefit of being white in America.

    –Cobra

  38. John Rosenberg May 29, 2006 at 3:41 pm | | Reply

    You are repeating what is perhaps your most fundamental inconsistency, which is that you claim to support anti-discrimination laws that clearly prohibit racial discrimination against “any person” even as you continue to call for discrimination against whites, Asians, and various un-preferred minorities in admissions and employment. I also continue to be struck by your inconsistency in arguing that American society is infected with pervasive, deep-seated racism even as you continue to call on that society to provide you with various preferences based on race.

  39. Cobra May 29, 2006 at 5:33 pm | | Reply

    John,

    No. I’m repeating that the American card game is rigged in your(white males) favor, and that Affirmative Action at least gives some a seat at the table and a chance to ante up.

    I support anti-discrimination laws even though I know they are as vigorously enforced as an unmanned radar speed check sign. My tax dollars pay for such law enforcement. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales actually works for African-Americans TOO, as shocking as that may be to some posters. Why is it incredible for you to believe I want them to do their jobs to their fullest extent, even though such action would be antithetical to the Southern Strategy and conservative political and racial stratification.

    It is not inconsistant to cite that the America that has bestowed and continues to grant racial preferences for whites (irrefutably) might extend entry level preferences for those not in the FAVORED racial classification.

    You like Michelle, are quick to draft Asians to your cause. You’ll find that many aren’t thrilled about your conscription of them:

    >>>”

    While Tien recognized the many successes of Asian Americans, he noted that they still face many racial barriers, which are in part a manifestation of cultural misunderstanding. Asian Americans on all levels—from the educated middle class to the poor and underprivileged—often come up against people who are unwilling to understand other cultures. He recalled that a former professor of his (before the Civil Rights era) would not call him by his name because it was “too difficult to remember.” He simply called Tien “Chinaman.” Although Tien finally confronted the professor and extracted from him a promise not to be addressed as “Chinaman,” the professor still refused to learn Tien’s name. He instead would say things like “Hey, come here.”

    The greatest danger facing underprivileged Asian Americans especially the young, is their second class status. Spawned by their perceived “foreignness,” diminished status is a result of continued anti-Asian discrimination. Chancellor Tien believes that it is the responsibility of Asian American university graduates to fight this discrimination because they are best equipped to do so.

    He further proposed that Americans of all backgrounds support programs such as affirmative action in order to eliminate discrimination against the Asian American middle and underclass. Affirmative action, he argued, has helped Asian American university graduates to get their foot in the door. Tien, however, also made note of the glass ceiling with which Asian American professionals must contend. Affirmative action has also promoted interracial understanding. Ethnic diversity on university campuses prepares American youth for living in a racially and culturally diverse society and deepens their awareness of global interdependence. But diversifying college campuses is only one goal. Affirmative action seeks to eliminate some of the institutional barriers that beset certain racial groups moreso than others. In other words, certain racial groups have better educational opportunities because of a multitude of factors, such as different economic status divided along racial lines. Affirmative action helps underprivileged youth get into college-giving them access to a better life.”

    Chancellor Chang-lin Tien University of California Berkely

    John writes:

    >>>”I also continue to be struck by your inconsistency in arguing that American society is infected with pervasive, deep-seated racism even as you continue to call on that society to provide you with various preferences based on race.”

    Of course I call on America to live up to what it promised, despite its irrefutably attrocious track record with people who look like me. You seem to imply that I should NOT ask anything of a nation my forefathers help build, often at the point of a gun, or crack of a whip. You imply that I should, as another blogger puts it, “lean into the racial strike zone and take one for the team”…a team that otherwise displays no loyalty to me without instances of insurrection, civil war, boycotts, and massive social upheaval.

    Why on earth should I do that, John?

    –Cobra

  40. David Nieporent May 29, 2006 at 7:35 pm | | Reply

    … but what is the CONSERVATIVE response for centuries of America Apartheid and current discrimination? A “color-blind” theory that has NEVER been practiced in American History? A “color blind” theory that cannot be enforced?

    What’s astonishing to me is that Cobra views this as a serious argument.

    What was the proper response to white people enslaving blacks? Was it (a) allowing black people to enslave whites for a while? Or was it (b) abolishing slavery — something that “had never been practiced in American History”?

    What was the proper response to black people being lynched instead of getting fair trials? Was it (a) lynching a bunch of white people? Was it (b) allowing black criminals a free pass for their crimes? Or was it (c) fair trials — something that “had never been practiced in American History”?

    And what is the proper response to black people being discriminated against? Is it discriminating against white people for a while? Or is it abolishing discrimination?

    I submit that in each case, if the evil is people failing to do X, which has never been done, then the solution is to… start doing X. The fact that X “had never been practiced” is not a reason not to do it; it’s not even relevant.

  41. Cobra May 29, 2006 at 8:57 pm | | Reply

    David Nieporent writes:

    >>>”What was the proper response to white people enslaving blacks? Was it (a) allowing black people to enslave whites for a while? Or was it (b) abolishing slavery — something that “had never been practiced in American History”?”

    Why were blacks enslaved by whites in colonial America in the first place, David? You act as if the enslavement of millions of human beings over 3 and half centuries on this continent was some Shelby-Steele-ish immutable act of nature–like the inevitability of snow in the winter, or some God given slice of manifest destiny. Mankind, unlike the animals, is a being of free will. Many Colonials CHOSE the abomination of slavery, and it took them a period of time longer than the existance of the current United States to stop doing it…and then only through the most horrific, blood-letting of a civil war the continent has ever seen. You’re not going to find any sympathy for white slave owners finally rebuking Satan with me.

    Second, if WHITE colonials like Patrick Henry and slave owner George Washington can start a bloody insurgency and revolution over “taxation without representation” why is chattel slavery somehow not worth black people raising a ruckus about? You’re not concluding that a tariff on tea is more heinous a crime against humanity than mass kidnapping, rape, torture and forced labor without liberty until death are you?

    David writes:

    >>>”What was the proper response to black people being lynched instead of getting fair trials? Was it (a) lynching a bunch of white people? Was it (b) allowing black criminals a free pass for their crimes? Or was it (c) fair trials — something that “had never been practiced in American History”?”

    Let’s leave alone for a second the obvious “why were whites lynching blacks in the first place” question..and go further–

    Who says African-Americans get the SAME and EQUAL application of justice as Whites do in America even TODAY, David?

    Are you going to make me march out statistics on legal representation for poor African Americans, police racial profiling, racially stratified prison sentencing and Rockefeller drug legislation? You know John doesn’t like when I bring up undisputed facts on discrimination against black people. Let’s just agree that Cobra Argument #1 covers it.

    Which brings us to–

    >>>”And what is the proper response to black people being discriminated against? Is it discriminating against white people for a while? Or is it abolishing discrimination?”

    As stated before, the game is fixed. America has and continues to discriminate FOR White Americans regardless of whether Affirmative Action exists or not. To “abolish” discrimination for whites, would be to abolish the current American system that established and perpetuates white hiearchy.

    I’ll give you a hint, though…you’re not going to find too many conservative fans of this strategy.

    –Cobra

Say What?