“Diversity” As Exploitation

By now everyone here is probably familiar with UCLA law prof Richard Sander’s argument (supported by copious evidence) that preferential admissions actually reduces the number of black lawyers (by inducing them to attend highly competitive schools where they drop out in large numbers). If not, look here, here, here, and here for starters.

Sander’s argument reinforces a point I’ve made here several times — that since “diversity” is justified by the benefits it allegedly provides to those non-minoritiy students who are exposed to the “diverse” minorities who are preferentially admitted (those minorities, after all, would receive whatever benefits “diversity” has to offer even if they attended less competitive schools), there is an ugly, unstated element of exploitation associated with it.

Sometimes, in presumably unguarded moments, diversiphiles even admit as much. An example occurred recently at a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights hearing on the American Bar Association’s proposed new accreditation standard, which appears to require law schools to bestow racial preferences. The following passage is from a report on that hearing in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Richard H. Sander, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, argued that law schools should not be using such preferences at all because they actually hurt, rather than help, black law students. For instance, at a majority of law schools, he said, half of all black students end up in the bottom 10th of their class, and black students are two and a half times more likely than whites to leave law school before graduating.

Mr. Sander is the author of a controversial study that argues that ending racial preferences in law-school admissions would actually increase the number of black lawyers because it would help ensure that students would attend law schools where they are more likely to succeed. He argued that the elite law schools draw black students who are not prepared to succeed there.

Equal Success

But Richard O. Lempert, a law professor at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, disagreed with Mr. Sander’s findings.

He said that according to a study that he and a colleague published, minority students who graduated from Michigan’s law school between 1970 and 1996 were just as successful in their careers as their white peers, even though they were admitted with significantly fewer credentials and started with lower grade-point averages.

Jennifer C. Braceras, a Republican member of the panel and a Harvard Law School graduate, asked Mr. Lempert why he believed students from minority groups would be worse off attending lower-tier rather than elite law schools, given Mr. Sander’s testimony.

“It would make the law schools worse off,” Mr. Lempert said. [Emphasis added]

“That’s a completely different question,” Ms. Braceras interrupted. “That goes to how you as a white professor feel about yourself. Law schools like to justify affirmative action by their own white guilt. But the question Professor Sander is asking,” she continued, is, “how does it help the alleged beneficiaries?”

With respect, I believe Commissioner Braceras misses a crucial point here. The preferentially admitted minorties are not the beneficiaries — they are not even the “alleged beneficiaries” — of “diversity”-justified preferential admissions. They are merely the instrumental agents of benefits that are alleged to accrue to others because of their presence. Thus it really doesn’t matter how many of them drop out, so long as a large enough “critical mass” remains to provide “diversity” to the non-minority students.

In this regard the preferentially-admitted minorities are directly analogous to the K–12 students who are not allowed to transfer to another school if doing so would reduce the amount of “diversity” available to the students in their current school. (See here, here, here, and here.)

UPDATE

As a commenter below points out, Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, discusses some of these points, and reaches similar concludions, here.

Say What? (45)

  1. David June 27, 2006 at 3:26 pm | | Reply

    I notice that Lembert’s study is of graduates, ignoring one of the key attributes of Sander’s work, which is the high drop out rate. In addition, are Lempert’s data adjusted for class standing and GPA? If so, wouldn’t that ignore Sander’s finding of a bias in class rank for minority students?

  2. Doss June 27, 2006 at 3:43 pm | | Reply

    National Review’s Peter Kirsanow has an article on the same subject.

  3. Agog June 27, 2006 at 5:11 pm | | Reply

    “But Richard O. Lempert, a law professor at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, disagreed with Mr. Sander’s findings. He said that according to a study that he and a colleague published, minority students who graduated from Michigan’s law school between 1970 and 1996 were just as successful in their careers as their white peers, even though they were admitted with significantly fewer credentials and started with lower grade-point averages.”

    This is simplisticly foolish.

    Of course African-American University of Michigan Law School graduates “were just as successful in their careers as their white peers”. They are graduates of the friggin’ university of michigan law school, one of the top five in the country! Does Professor Lempert seriously think ANY Michigan Law grad is ever going to end up hustling drunk driving cases down at the county court house?!?

    Moreover, Professor Lempert’s point, such as it is, also ignores the fact that these same minority law grads simply graduate from the affirmative action minor leagues at Michigan into the affirmative action major leagues that is employment at silk stocking law firms. The courting that goes on for these minority law grads is the equivalent of that received by the most accomplished Law Review editor.

  4. Federal Dog June 27, 2006 at 5:34 pm | | Reply

    “Moreover, Professor Lempert’s point, such as it is, also ignores the fact that these same minority law grads simply graduate from the affirmative action minor leagues at Michigan into the affirmative action major leagues that is employment at silk stocking law firms. The courting that goes on for these minority law grads is the equivalent of that received by the most accomplished Law Review editor.”

    This is correct. To test the professional success of law school graduates admitted under AA, you’d have to jettison all preferential treatment of them in the hiring process.

  5. LTEC June 28, 2006 at 12:13 am | | Reply

    I assume that John is being ironic when he appears to take seriously the claims of diversity advocates that they actually desire diversity. I think it is clear that when they think about it, they know that they don’t really care about diversity at all. I don’t think they know what they actually do care about (and they are certainly unable to coherently articulate it), but I think that at some level they really do think that Black people are beneficiaries of AA and that the only people who are harmed by it are whiny White people who don’t matter. (The female White people in this case count as Whites, not Women.)

    And even though some Black people are hurt by AA, some other Black people are helped by it. And unlike Agog and Dog, I think that a person who is admitted to a school because of AA, and who is then hired by a company because of that school and because of AA, and who then gets promoted because of AA, etc., can have a very successful career (even though he may always be regarded by everybody as under-qualified).

  6. Federal Dog June 28, 2006 at 7:41 am | | Reply

    “And unlike Agog and Dog, I think that a person who is admitted to a school because of AA, and who is then hired by a company because of that school and because of AA, and who then gets promoted because of AA, etc., can have a very successful career”

    You have misunderstood my remarks. Of course they enjoy success, but it’s not real, and it’s nothing they achieved. It’s all engineered for them, from start to finish, on the exact same basis as admissions and graduation from college is. My point was if we want to understand how massive the racial discrimination has been, we need to evaluate the actual skill level of AA beneficiaries by jettisoning the disciminatory practices that prop them up professionally.

    What “success” could they be shown to enjoy if standards were actually applied to their work? That’s the real question here.

  7. Agog June 28, 2006 at 11:38 am | | Reply

    LTEC misses my point. I agree that Affirmative Action admittees can be successful in school and go on to have successful careers. That this is so is not an argument in favor of Affirmative Action. Rather, it is springboard for a discussion about admission criteria generally. For example, let’s assume that for 85% of its admittees Michigan Law requirs a GPA/LSAT pretty close to 3.8 and 170. Assume also that for about 15% of the class who are minority admittees GPA/LSAT close to 3.3/140 will earn admission to Michigan Law. Assume also that those 30 are able to successfully finish Law School and go on to successful carreers.

    Doesn’t thus just prove that there is no reason for Michigan to set its GPA/LAST as extraordinarily high as it does for the other 85% of the class in order to seat a class of likely successful students and alumni?

    The dilemma Michigan faces is that it CHOOSES to set its entering standards so high as to exclude almost all African Americans because so few exist who satisfy those standards. This self-imposed high selectivity then forces another choice on the School. Either be pretty homogenous by race or practice race discrimination in favor of a percentage of minorities. (Scalia’s dissent in Grutter is especially scathing on this score.)

    The most diverse law school in the country is probably the one that is also the least selective. The problem for Michigan and others like is that they are trying to achieve mutually incompatible objectives — being both highly selective AND racially diverse.

  8. superdestroyer June 28, 2006 at 11:43 am | | Reply

    Isn’t it interesting that the effect of AA is to create a separate and unequal system of admission and employment.

    The black applicants to a top tier law school do not have to be amont the top applicants. They just have to be among the top black applicants.

    The same goes for getting a job. The black law school graduate does not need to be in the top of his class to get the silk stocking job. He/she only has to be at the top of the black students.

  9. Cobra June 28, 2006 at 7:01 pm | | Reply

    Federal Dog writes:

    >>>”Of course they enjoy success, but it’s not real, and it’s nothing they achieved. It’s all engineered for them, from start to finish, on the exact same basis as admissions and graduation from college is. My point was if we want to understand how massive the racial discrimination has been, we need to evaluate the actual skill level of AA beneficiaries by jettisoning the disciminatory practices that prop them up professionally.

    What “success” could they be shown to enjoy if standards were actually applied to their work? That’s the real question here.”

    Success is “not real”? By what standards? Are you claiming that non-Affirmative Action person would enjoy ‘real” success? By what metrics?

    George W. Bush attended Yale based upon a LEGACY. Is everything he has accomplished (or fouled up beyond repair) “not real”?

    And who is the “we” in this revolution of yours to check the credentials of AA recipients (re: brown faced folks)?

    Doss writes:

    >>>”National Review’s Peter Kirsanow has an article on the same subject.”

    Ahh, the National Review! That magazine has a wonderful editorial legacy regarding Civil Rights. Remember these beauties?

    >>>”Let us gently say the fiend who set off the bomb does not have the sympathy of the white population in the South; in fact, he set back the cause of the white people there so dramatically as to raise the question whether in fact the explosion was the act of a provocateur — of a Communist, or of a crazed Negro.

    And let it be said that the convulsions that go on, and are bound to continue, have resulted from revolutionary assaults on the status quo, and a contempt for the law, which are traceable to the Supreme Court’s manifest contempt for the settled traditions of Constitutional practice. Certainly it now appears that Birmingham’s Negroes will never be content so long as the white population is free to be free.”

    And this one:

    >>>”The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists”

    And this one…

    As you know, Mr. Jones, there are some communities and some states where the Negro’s voting potential is very great. We wish at all costs to avoid a repetition of the Reconstruction period when newly freed slaves made the laws and undertook their enforcement. We feel even more strongly about miscegenation or racial amalgamation.

    The experience of other countries and civilizations has demonstrated that the separation of the races biologically is highly preferable to amalgamation.

    I know of nothing in human history that would lead us to conclude that miscegenation is desirable.”

    Sen. Richard Russell, 1957

    At least Mad Magazine has cool cartoons

    –Cobra

  10. actus June 28, 2006 at 8:05 pm | | Reply

    “by inducing them to attend highly competitive schools where they drop out in large numbers). If not, look here, here, here, and here for starters.”

    How condenscing, to tell black law students that they’re not good enough at telling what schools they can or can’t attend.

  11. Laura(southernxyl) June 28, 2006 at 10:09 pm | | Reply

    “George W. Bush attended Yale based upon a LEGACY.”

    Cobra, can you cite a source for this assertion?

  12. Den June 28, 2006 at 11:09 pm | | Reply

    Cobra–

    Great series of non-sequiturs and irrelevancies as to the subject; good to see you’ve still got your “A” game.

  13. David Nieporent June 29, 2006 at 2:45 am | | Reply

    It’s pretty ridiculous to trot out a person’s fifty year old quote in an attempt to discredit that person. It’s simply intellectually bankrupt to trot out someone else’s fifty year quote in an attempt to discredit him.

    I’ll take that as an admission from Cobra that he’s got nothing.

  14. Cobra June 29, 2006 at 7:37 am | | Reply

    Considering our laws are comprised of documents that are over 200 years old, I wouldn’t dismiss 50 year old quotes hat in hand.

    The National Review is infamous for being an anti-civil rights publication. David, if you have evidence that refutes this historical reality, please post it.

    –Cobra

  15. Anita June 29, 2006 at 10:01 am | | Reply

    the fact of past or present discrimination does not justify a situation where most white and asian students have, say, a grade of 90, and can’t get into the institution without such a grade, and most black students have a grade of 75, and their race is taken as making up for the lack of the grades.

    the real question is: do the grades mean something? if they mean nothing, why have them at all? Eliminate the requirement for everyone. If the grades mean something, however, the color of the skin can’t make up for the lack of the grade. I believe the grades mean something. The necessity of meeting such requirements is one of the reasons things work in America as compared to other places, where rewards are allotted mainly for political reasons. Yes, I know Cobra is rolling his eyes. But we do expect and receive a high level of competence here, much more so than in other parts of the world.

    The study is going to lead to demands to get rid of the standards for graduating. IF the problem is that people get into institutions and can’t perform, perhaps the problem is that the performance demand is wrong. Also, the study is going to lead to more demands to get rid of other qualifying standards, such as the bar exam and the medical exams that doctors have to take, etc. That is going to be the response to the study saying blacks don’t pass these exams the same way others do. Eliminate the exams and eliminate the problem.

    This may seem a minor problem, given the number of blacks here. But imagine hispanics making the same demands, and one day you have a situation where half of any given graduating class or certified class can’t do what they should know how to do, and everyone knows the distinction is a racial one. That will not be a good day for the cause of nonracism.

  16. David Nieporent June 29, 2006 at 2:19 pm | | Reply

    Considering our laws are comprised of documents that are over 200 years old, I wouldn’t dismiss 50 year old quotes hat in hand.

    A complete non-sequitur. You might as well say, “Considering that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, I would order pizza tonight.”

    Laws are not “quotes.” They are not offered for the purpose of establishing the mens rea of a particular person. If you offered a line from the Declaration of Independence as proof of what the guy who owns the corner convenience store is thinking, you’d be being just as silly.

    The National Review is infamous for being an anti-civil rights publication. David, if you have evidence that refutes this historical reality, please post it.

    Assuming for the sake of argument that you’re 100% correct: so what? We’re not talking about the character of the former editors of the National Review. Or that of the present editors of the National Review. Or even that of Kirsanow himself. We’re talking about an article he wrote.

  17. Michelle Dulak Thomson June 29, 2006 at 6:43 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    The New Republic, as I understand it, had a nice Stalinist phase, several decades back. I would stop short of calling it Stalinist now.

    National Review is not as it stands an “anti-civil-rights publication,” any more than the Democratic Party is an “anti-civil-rights party.” The quotes you pull out might be matched easily with quotes from prominent Democratic politicians from the same period. I would not argue from that that the current Democratic Party is therefore racist, and neither would you.

  18. Cobra June 29, 2006 at 8:39 pm | | Reply

    Here’s an excerpt from Peter Kirsanow’s bio:

    >>>”Chair of the board of directors of the Center for New Black Leadership, Mr. Kirsanow also serves on the advisory board of the National Center for Public Policy Research. He received his B.A. in 1976 from Cornell University and his J.D. with honors in 1979 from Cleveland State University, where he served as articles editor of the Cleveland State Law Review.”

    Were they using Affirmative Action back when Kirsanow went to school

    Now, I’d have to do further research to see if Cleveland State was considered to have an “elite law school” back in 1976, but there’s no doubt about Cornell University’s status. There’s also no doubt about the African-American status of Peter Kirsanow. I would ask the posters who claim I’m into non-sequitors, if the same scrutiny of qualifications and “success” of OTHER African-American students and lawyers applies to Mr. Kirsanow, an acclaimed Bush recess appointee?

    I haven’t been able to retrieve data about Kirsanow’s SAT scores (to see if he was 200 points or so lower than his white classmates at Cornell, as John frequently refers) or his Cornell GPA, and how it stacked up against his white classmates at Cleveland State, although he did graduate with “honors”, according to his bio.

    Of course it’s critical to the argument, because Peter Kirsanow, MAY have possibly been a beneficiary of the very same Affirmative Action he’s fighting to destroy today.

    David writes:

    >>>”Assuming for the sake of argument that you’re 100% correct: so what? We’re not talking about the character of the former editors of the National Review. Or that of the present editors of the National Review. Or even that of Kirsanow himself. We’re talking about an article he wrote.”

    No, the exact quote from John was:

    >>>”As a commenter below points out, Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, discusses some of these points, and reaches similar concludions, here.”

    IMHO, the character and background of the author is completely relevant. See the above passage.

    Laura writes:

    >>>”Cobra, can you cite a source for this assertion?”

    Sure. Here’s one of many.

    >>>”In the fall of 1963, George W. Bush was a senior at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., facing the same dilemma confronting his 232 classmates: where to apply to college. He had never made the honor roll, and his verbal score on the SAT was a mediocre 566. Although popular among his classmates, he was neither an exceptional athlete nor did he possess any particularly outstanding extracurricular talents. Looking over his record, Andover’s dean of students suggested that the young Mr. Bush consider applying to schools other than Yale, the alma mater of his father and grandfather.

    But unbeknownst to the dean and Mr. Bush, Yale had quietly changed its admissions policy toward alumni sons during the very months when his application was under consideration. As the number of applicants to Yale increased, the administration decided that it could no longer afford to treat all legacy applicants equally. Instead, it would differentiate among alumni sons, giving extra preference on the basis of the family’s contribution to Yale and its importance to American society.

    As the son of a prominent Texas oilman then running for the United States Senate – and the grandson of a United States senator from Connecticut who had recently served as a member of the Yale Corporation – George W. Bush was no ordinary applicant. In April 1964, he was accepted to Yale – unlike 49 percent of all alumni sons who applied that year.”

    Who you know not what you know

    Michelle writes:

    >>>”National Review is not as it stands an “anti-civil-rights publication,”

    That’s a matter of opinion.

    –Cobra

  19. Dom June 30, 2006 at 2:23 pm | | Reply

    I used to hate the way Cobra always hijacked these postings, but now I have to admire him. Just giving credit where it is due.

    If I may …

    Bush obviously received preferential treatment from Yale. Universities apparently believe that Legacy is a good way to raise money, and there is nothing illegal about it. I wish Legacy and Athletic scholarships would end because it really takes the wind out of the sails for any anti-AA argument, but I have to admit I might change my mind if I were a College President.

    WFB Jr is a good example of a writer who can talk himself into anything, but the quotes are not especially bad. His suspicions that a communist or a black may have been the Birmingham bomber are not out of whack. There are obvious analogies with Tawana Brawley, or what is happening with the Duke LaCrosse Team right now.

    Democrats were as bad as NR 50 years ago. They refused to meet with the NCAA when their man (JFK)was running, and they placed wiretaps on MLK after their man won. No one holds it against them.

    Where Kirsanow publishes is determined by how accepted his subject matter is by the editors. It’s not like The Nation will publish him. He probably benefitted from AA, but it’s not like he had a choice. In any case, his intention is to end AA because he believes (and I find him convincing) that it is hurting minorities.

  20. Michelle Dulak Thomson June 30, 2006 at 6:04 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    [me:] “National Review is not as it stands an “anti-civil-rights publication[,]”

    [you:] That’s a matter of opinion.

    No, it isn’t. There simply aren’t writers at NR or NRO who would deny anyone anything by virtue of race. There’s hardly anyone who even cares about race as such, apart from Derbyshire (who admittedly is hung up on the race/ethnicity thing, though not nearly so much as some of the commenters here).

    My point was that your NR quotes could be matched line-for-line and then some by quotes of leading Democrats from the same time period. If the Democratic Party has changed over 50 years, maybe NR too? At any rate, you’re evidently prepared to take one at its word, but not the other.

  21. David Nieporent July 1, 2006 at 5:51 am | | Reply

    Of course it’s critical to the argument, because Peter Kirsanow, MAY have possibly been a beneficiary of the very same Affirmative Action he’s fighting to destroy today.

    So what?

    IMHO, the character and background of the author is completely relevant. See the above passage.

    You’re wrong. You need to look up the definition of “ad hominem.”

    The argument that affirmative action (read: race preferences) is immoral is either right or wrong. It isn’t sometimes right and sometimes wrong, depending on who is saying it and what the speaker’s background is.

  22. Cobra July 1, 2006 at 11:00 am | | Reply

    Dom writes:

    >>>”I used to hate the way Cobra always hijacked these postings, but now I have to admire him. Just giving credit where it is due.”

    Thanks, Dom. I just like to dig a little deeper, read between the lines, and offer a different perspective. I’m sure my posts can be frustrating to those who walk in lock-step with right-winged, European-American exhaltation projects like the MCRI, but that’s the spirit of a free society, right?

    David writes:

    >>>”The argument that affirmative action (read: race preferences) is immoral is either right or wrong. It isn’t sometimes right and sometimes wrong, depending on who is saying it and what the speaker’s background is.”

    I disagree with you again. You deal in moral absolutes. American society is an ambiguous haze as far as racial preferences are concerned. George Washington owned over 400 slaves, yet there are graven images, monuments, schools, cities and STATES.

    So was George Washington, the so-called “Father of our Country” moral or immoral, Dave? In fact, I can take it to the next level…

    Is AMERICA moral or immoral based upon its track record on racial preferences?

    THAT is why I lock and load on the Peter Kirsanow reference on a blog thread that is by and large a hit piece on black college students and lawyers. As Dom properly pointed out..

    >>>” He probably benefitted from AA, but it’s not like he had a choice. In any case, his intention is to end AA because he believes (and I find him convincing) that it is hurting minorities.”

    Of course, Kirsanow’s recess appointment to the Civil Rights Commission by Bush can be viewed as a form of Affirmative Action based upon his lack of legal experience on civil rights cases. (read his bio) He’s simply a black republican lawyer who agrees with Bush, and that’s apparently all the qualifications one needs.

    All of the Anti-Affirmative Action types here should be OUTRAGED at this recess appointment, because there are scores of published angry white lawyers in think tanks who have fought against Affirmative Action for decades who are “OBVIOUSLY” more qualified than Kirsanow. They’re “OBVIOUSLY” more qualified because according to this thread:

    >>>”Of course they enjoy success, but it’s not real, and it’s nothing they achieved. It’s all engineered for them, from start to finish, on the exact same basis as admissions and graduation from college is. My point was if we want to understand how massive the racial discrimination has been, we need to evaluate the actual skill level of AA beneficiaries by jettisoning the disciminatory practices that prop them up professionally.”

    –Federal Dog

    >>>”The preferentially admitted minorties are not the beneficiaries — they are not even the “alleged beneficiaries” — of “diversity”-justified preferential admissions. They are merely the instrumental agents of benefits that are alleged to accrue to others because of their presence.”

    –John Rosenberg

    >>>”Isn’t it interesting that the effect of AA is to create a separate and unequal system of admission and employment.”

    –Superdestroyer

    Michelle writes:

    >>>”There simply aren’t writers at NR or NRO who would deny anyone anything by virtue of race. There’s hardly anyone who even cares about race as such, apart from Derbyshire (who admittedly is hung up on the race/ethnicity thing, though not nearly so much as some of the commenters here).”

    Oh really?

    >>>”What is racism, rhetorically?

    It’s a reflexive, irrational, all-encompassing alibi for black failure derived from a hyper-sensitivity to racially disparate outcomes; it is also, more familiarly-with few exceptions — whatever a black person says it is.”

    Mark Goldblatt–Aug 5 2002

    >>>”Bill Bennett explicitly rejected as “reprehensible” the hypothetical mass abortion of black babies, and the usual charlatans, race-baiters, and shakedown artists jumped all over him. But the statistics suggest that that mass abortion of black babies is actually going on, and their community’s self-appointed spokespersons are largely silent. You can’t blame Howard Dean for preferring to beat up Bill Bennett. Nor can you blame the official racism industry, now so large and lucrative and employing so many highly remunerated panjandrums from the Reverend Jackson down that it has a far greater interest than the Ku Klux Klan in maintaining old-school racism. But even the most cursory glance at the facts suggests an ever wider divergence of interest between two key pillars of what’s left of the Democrats–the self-congratulatory white liberals and the black-lobby fodder.”

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:141169080/Undiscussable~R~(racism+in+America).html?refid=SEO “>Mark Steyn–Oct 24 2005 NR

    >>>”In 1968, a few weeks before Steele’s college graduation, he and fellow black students hadmarched into the school president’s office with a list of demands. A lit cigarette in hand, he letthe ashes fall onto the president’s plush carpet. It was, as Steele says, “the effrontery, theinsolence, that was expected in our new commitment to militancy.” Givhan (who is also black) is Shelby Steele at 22: a racial exhibitionist who revels in making clear her freedom toindulge in the effrontery that arrogantly insults conventional (white) America.And of course much of her white readership responds by asking for more. Legitimizing black anger undoubtedly makes them feel racially cleansed.”

    Abigail Thernstrom–May 10, 2006 NRO

    C’mon Michelle. I didn’t even get into black bomb throwers like Jonah Goldberg, D’nesh D’Souza or Ann Coulter before she was fired.

    Well…that’s a lot of ground covered in a post, huh?

    –Cobra

  23. Michelle Dulak Thomson July 1, 2006 at 3:52 pm | | Reply

    Cobra, I said “race as such.” I don’t see how complaining about other people’s race-obsession amounts to race-obsession itself. I don’t see, either, how Goldberg and D’Souza (“D’nesh”? Where’d you get that?) figure here. None of these people are racists, though all are unhappy with a certain strain of thought about race. Me too.

  24. Federal Dog July 1, 2006 at 3:59 pm | | Reply

    Is there a point to all the excerpts Cobra posted above? I am somehow involved, but I have no idea what the post is saying about me or anyone else.

  25. Chetly Zarko July 1, 2006 at 7:15 pm | | Reply

    Yeah, that was alot, but the problem, Cobra, is I don’t know exactly what ground you covered with it. The quotes were pretty bare and devoid of impact or analysis.

  26. Cobra July 1, 2006 at 11:02 pm | | Reply

    I didn’t think I needed to post an overview, but here’s the cliff notes synapsis:

    1. Posters decry the use of Affirmative Action in both undergrad and law school admissions.

    2. Posters claim Affirmative Action “damages” black law students.

    3. Federal Dog goes as far as to claim that any success a black lawyer has, one who may have gained from Affirmative Action, is “not real.”

    4. Posters cite as a reference an article written in the historically anti-civil rights National Review by an African-American lawyer and Bush recess appointee to the US Civil Rights Commission Peter Kirsanow, who more than likely was a beneficiary of the same Affirmative Action posters are decrying.

    5. Cobra spotlights the delicious irony of sourcing a black lawyer who went to school during the heyday of Affirmative Action, who received a government job that his own resume shows he wasn’t the best qualified for his arguments AGAINST the program.

    6. Cobra also illuminates the hypocrisy of Anti-Affirmative Action posters for not holding Kirsanow to the SAME scrutiny and derision they apparently hold for OTHER black law students and lawyers. Pointed question to Federal Dog being:

    Is Peter Kirsanow’s success “real?”

    7. The ancillary posts refer to Laura’s question on Bush legacy, David’s definition of ad hominem attacks (impeaching testimony is also considered an “ad hominem”), and Michelle’s vigorous defense of the National Review, although I’m sure she realizes that I only scratched the surface of the race-based material spewed forth from that…”magazine.”

    Michelle writes:

    >>>”I don’t see, either, how Goldberg and D’Souza (“D’nesh”? Where’d you get that?) figure here. None of these people are racists, though all are unhappy with a certain strain of thought about race”

    I threw in an extra “‘”. Anyway, are you SURE about DINESH? Are you talking about the same DINESH I am?

    >>>”Under D’Souza’s editorship, the Dartmouth Review became notorious both for its attacks on alleged liberal bias at the university and for its provocative articles on racial topics. It published a parody titled “Dis Sho Ain’t No Jive Bro,” which mocked the way African-American students supposedly speak. (“Dese boys be sayin’ that we be comin’ here to Dartmut an’ not takin’ the classics. You know, Homa, Shakesphere; but I hea’ dey all be co’d in da ground, six feet unda, and whatchu be askin’ us to learn from dem?”) Also during his tenure as editor, according to a September 22, 1995, article in The Washington Post, the Review “published an interview with a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, using a mock photograph of a black man hanging from a campus tree.”

    Laura Ingraham worked under him at the Review TOO…hmmm

    >>>”D’Souza’s key work is the 700-page The End of Racism, a book that managed to offend even conservative blacks with its declaration that black culture is pathologically inferior to white culture and that “the criminal and irresponsible black underclass represents a revival of barbarism in the midst of Western civilization” (p. 527). D’Souza’s history of southern segregation characterized it as merely misguided paternalism, “based on the code of the Christian and the gentleman” and intended to protect blacks: “Segregation was intended to assure that blacks, like the handicapped, would be insulated from the radical racists and – in the paternalist view – permitted to perform to the capacity of their arrested development” (p. 179). The book’s declarations were so extreme that two prominent African-American conservatives, Robert Woodson, Sr. and Glenn Loury, renounced their affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute to protest AEI’s sponsorship of the book. According to Loury, AEI marketed The End of Racism extensively in business circles, and “Republican staffers on Capitol Hill are said to have eagerly anticipated how the book might move the affirmative action debate in the ‘right direction.'”

    Even Professional Black Conservatives hate this guy

    Chetly,

    >>>”Yeah, that was alot, but the problem, Cobra, is I don’t know exactly what ground you covered with it. The quotes were pretty bare and devoid of impact or analysis.”

    Chetly, I understand if it’s hard to follow, so I hope my little bullet points helped. Of course, now somebody will come back with a different angle, and “whack-a-mole” starts all over again.

    –Cobra

  27. David Nieporent July 2, 2006 at 1:14 am | | Reply

    Of course, Kirsanow’s recess appointment to the Civil Rights Commission by Bush can be viewed as a form of Affirmative Action based upon his lack of legal experience on civil rights cases. (read his bio) He’s simply a black republican lawyer who agrees with Bush, and that’s apparently all the qualifications one needs.

    1. There was no “Recess appointment to the Civil Rights Commission.” YOU need to read his bio. There was a recess appointment to the NLRB. He was appointed normally to the USCCR in December 2001. (You may remember that Mary Frances Berry tried to break the law and refuse to allow him to take his seat. It took a federal appeals court to overrule her.)

    2. What do you mean by “lack of experience on civil rights cases”? What is a “civil rights case”? He handled (according to that bio) “employment-related litigation as well as in contract negotiations, NLRB proceedings, EEO matters, and arbitration.” That sounds like “experience in civil rights cases” to me.

    3. What “qualifications” do you think one “needs” to be on the USCCR? Why don’t you think he has them? Keep in mind that the USCCR doesn’t have any power to do anything besides hold hearings and issue reports. Legal experience certainly seems to be important for that. What else would one need? Why do you think someone else is more qualified than he is to do these things?

    I disagree with you again. You deal in moral absolutes.

    I might, but my statement had nothing to do with “absolutes.” Just logic. The ad hominem is a logical fallacy. [link removed 10/1/2017]

    American society is an ambiguous haze as far as racial preferences are concerned. George Washington owned over 400 slaves, yet there are graven images, monuments, schools, cities and STATES.

    And? What does that have to do with my point? George Washington may be a good person or a bad person, or he may be somewhere in between. America (to answer your next question) may be good or bad. But whatever Washington’s score, whatever America’s score, on the moral scale, the truth of the assessment doesn’t change based on the identity of the speaker.

    Kirsanow’s statements are the issue, not Kirsanow’s character. The latter is irrelevant to the truth of the former. “2+2=4” is true, regardless of whether you say it or I say it. “Government sponsored racial discrimination is wrong” is true, whether Kirsanow says it or Jesse Jackson says it.

  28. Federal Dog July 2, 2006 at 7:04 am | | Reply

    “Federal Dog goes as far as to claim that any success a black lawyer has, one who may have gained from Affirmative Action, is “not real.”

    Yes. This so-called “success” is merely a facade: a politically correct fiction that we tell to members of preferred racial minorities who could never compete professionally on their own merits.

    Any questions?

  29. Cobra July 2, 2006 at 10:55 am | | Reply

    David writes:

    >>>”And? What does that have to do with my point? George Washington may be a good person or a bad person, or he may be somewhere in between. America (to answer your next question) may be good or bad. But whatever Washington’s score, whatever America’s score, on the moral scale, the truth of the assessment doesn’t change based on the identity of the speaker.”

    It absolutely does, IMHO. George Washington admonishing the practice of slavery or Bill Bennett lecturing against gambling is a clear example of impeachable argument.

    The “truth of the assessment” is again based upon your point of view. I frequently cite statistics and reports that would clearly indicate that American society is racist. You state here:

    >>>”America (to answer your next question) may be good or bad.”

    You don’t apply absolutism in your definition of America despite the evidence, yet you do apply it:

    >>>”Government sponsored racial discrimination is wrong” is true, whether Kirsanow says it or Jesse Jackson says it.”

    From your own keyboard. So David, is America “right” or “wrong”?

    –Cobra

  30. John Rosenberg July 2, 2006 at 12:26 pm | | Reply

    [Michelle:] “National Review is not as it stands an “anti-civil-rights publication[,]”

    [Cobra:] “That’s a matter of opinion.”

    [Michelle:] “No, it isn’t. There simply aren’t writers at NR or NRO who would deny anyone anything by virtue of race….”

    [Michelle:] “I don’t see, either, how Goldberg and D’Souza … figure here. None of these people are racists, though all are unhappy with a certain strain of thought about race.”

    Michelle/Cobra – You two are talking past each other, as frequently happens here.

    Michelle, you persist (as do I) in defining “civil rights” as the right to be free from discrimination based on race.

    Cobra, by contrast, defines “civil rights” as the right of blacks and a few other selected minorities to receive favorable treatment because of their race. “Racists,” by extension, are people who continue to believe in colorblind equal treatment and hence oppose racial and ethnic favoritism.

    If you accepts Cobra’s definitions, then of course National Review is “anti-civil rights” and D’Souza, Goldberg, etc. are “racists.”

  31. Michelle Dulak Thomson July 2, 2006 at 2:44 pm | | Reply

    John, I don’t think you’re doing Cobra justice. He certainly thinks D’Souza is a racist, but I’m not sure he said the same about everyone at NR. He said “anti-civil-rights,” and you’re correct that I disagree with him about what that means.

    Cobra, I’m not going to stick up for the Dartmouth Review, apart from saying that what it printed about Black students isn’t any worse than what Mark Morford writes in his twice-weekly San Francisco Chronicle column about evangelical Christians. The main differences are that a hell of a lot more people read the Chron than the Dartmouth Review, and that a few decades on, no one (please God) is going to remember Morford’s name.

    As for The End of Racism, there was one really telling graf in that book, about D’Souza’s early education. He said IIRC that he really had experienced “diversity” being educated in India — he was surrounded, as we never are here, by people with genuinely different ideas of how society should be ordered, people who were prepared to defend these ideas. What he was talking about was pretty much the first (and last) argument that really made “diversity” attractive to me. D’Souza said that he was in classes with articulate and intelligent socialists, Communists, tribalists, monarchists. I would love that, and I think having an articulate and intelligent (say) monarchist in every classroom would be real diversity, and genuinely useful. We’re so accustomed to how we go on today that we haven’t the faintest idea that there even are alternatives, and therefore haven’t the faintest idea why we are right in rejecting them.

    Show me “diversity” in that sense and I’ll sign on instantly.

  32. John Rosenberg July 2, 2006 at 4:57 pm | | Reply

    [Michelle:] “John, I don’t think you’re doing Cobra justice. He certainly thinks D’Souza is a racist, but I’m not sure he said the same about everyone at NR. He said “anti-civil-rights,” and you’re correct that I disagree with him about what that means.”

    Michelle – As usual, you’re too kind. Specifically, Cobra described everyone he mentioned associated with NR (D’Souza, Goldberg, maybe Coulter) as a racist, and he specifically referred to “the race-based material spewed forth from that…’magazine.'” (Presumably, if a magazine is racist it becomes a “magazine.”)

    More generally, you appear to see in Cobra’s posts more daylight between those he regards a “anti-civil rights” and those he thinks of as “racist” than I have noticed.

  33. Cobra July 2, 2006 at 6:52 pm | | Reply

    Federal Dog writes:

    >>>”Yes. This so-called “success” is merely a facade: a politically correct fiction that we tell to members of preferred racial minorities who could never compete professionally on their own merits.

    Any questions?”

    Only a repeat of the obvious one. Do you apply this standard to Peter Kirsanow?

    And while I’m at it, Clarence Thomas?

    And what about these folks:

    >>>”Much of the media attention following President Bush’s announcement in January of his opposition to affirmative action focused on the dubious role National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice played in helping to shape his decision.

    A small clique of right-wing Black lawyers, all Bush administration appointees, however, played an equally, if not more, influential role.

    Shortly after Bush announced he had asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file a friend of the court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policies, an article in The Washington Post reported: “Many black conservative lawyers who are Bush appointees . . . including officials at the Education and Justice Departments, lobbied vociferously for a broader argument against affirmative action.”

    The article was specifically referring to Gerald A. Reynolds, Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights; Brian W. Jones, general counsel at the Department of Education; and Ralph F. Boyd Jr., Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at DOJ…

    …Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, who is African American and a graduate of the University of Michigan law school, argued against Bush filing a brief.

    Reynolds first earned his ultraconservative credentials as a legal analyst for the Center for Equal Opportunity, a think tank that opposes affirmative action and diversity policies, and from 1997 to 1998 he served as president and legal counsel to the Center for New Black Leadership (CNBL), a conservative, national public policy think-tank in Washington, D.C.

    Prior to his appointment at the Education Department, Jones was an attorney at the San Francisco law firm of Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld Kelly & Kraemer. He had also served as Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary to California Governor Pete Wilson and as counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., where he worked on nominations, constitutional law and civil rights issues for then-chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Jones also served as president of the CNBL…

    …Before his appointment to head the civil rights division at DOJ, Boyd was a partner at the Boston law firm Goodwin Proctor, where he specialized in corporate litigation. He spent six years as a federal prosecutor and has no prior civil rights experience.

    David Bositis, senior research analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C., says the three men are ideological clones of Clarence Thomas and were picked by conservative insiders in the Bush administration to do the bidding of the right-wing.

    “They share the same hostility toward civil rights as the President does, and just because they are Black don’t expect them to be a moderating influence,” Bositis says. “Colin Powell is the only Black person in the Bush Administration who is Black in terms of political sensibilities.”

    Are ALL of these black lawyers enjoying REAL success

    How about it Dog? They ARE Bush appointees, remember.

    John writes:

    >>>”Specifically, Cobra described everyone he mentioned associated with NR (D’Souza, Goldberg, maybe Coulter) as a racist, and he specifically referred to “the race-based material spewed forth from that…’magazine.'” (Presumably, if a magazine is racist it becomes a “magazine.”)”

    Could you point out where I did that, John?

    Michelle writes:

    >>>””John, I don’t think you’re doing Cobra justice. He certainly thinks D’Souza is a racist, but I’m not sure he said the same about everyone at NR. He said “anti-civil-rights,” and you’re correct that I disagree with him about what that means.”

    Which is very fair, Michelle. Thank you.

    –Cobra

  34. John Rosenberg July 2, 2006 at 9:21 pm | | Reply

    [Cobra:] “Could you point out where I did that [argue that NR and its writers are racist], John?”

    Well, when Michelle wrote “There simply aren’t writers at NR or NRO who would deny anyone anything by virtue of race. There’s hardly anyone who even cares about race as such, apart from Derbyshire,” you replied: “Oh, really?” And then you added, “C’mon Michelle. I didn’t even get into black bomb throwers like Jonah Goldberg, D’nesh D’Souza or Ann Coulter before she was fired.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume that if you think NR is filled with people who would deny things to people because of their race, not to mention the “black bomb throwers” like Goldberg, D’Souza, et. al., you think they, and NR itself, are racist.

    Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume that when you insist that you only “only scratched the surface of the race-based material spewed forth from that … ‘magazine,’” you believed that a magazine (excuse me, “magazine”) is racist if it spews forth race-based material.

    Actually, I hope I am wrong, and I would welcome your correcting me by insisting that, contrary to my assumptions, you do not believe National Review and its stable of writers are racist.

  35. Li July 2, 2006 at 10:55 pm | | Reply

    There’s an easy way to find out just how smart and hardworking these black law schoolers are–get rid of the quotas. Then we’ll know. Afraid that someone won’t like or hire you because you’re black? Well, get some evidence and PROVE it in court, like any other crime. If you can’t prove it, then that’s too bad. Time to hit the bricks looking for a job elsewhere.

    BTW, who cares if Cobra thinks someone is a racist or not? I think he’s a racist who calls everybody he disagrees with on this issue a racist. So what. Keep your eyes on the ball, getting rid of race quotas. Let him cry, whine, and name call all he wants. It means nothing.

    MCRI gets approved in the fall. That’s three states (CA, WA, and MI). Only 47 more to go. Got to give that lovin’ Ward Connerly a call and get the same thing going in Illinois. You don’t like it much when the charity gets pulled, do you Cobra? It stings, doesn’t it? But then again, you had to know it would end anyway. The outsourcing of jobs and insourcing of cheap labor will hasten it along too. You blacks should have spent the last 40 years getting things together. Unfortunately, you just became more and more dependent on the government and quota jobs, and pushed for greater expansion of AA. It appears that the tide has crested, and is now starting to recede.

    But no matter what you call it, it sure is looks good to me. Whine and name call all you want. It won’t change a thing.

  36. Cobra July 3, 2006 at 12:33 am | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”Actually, I hope I am wrong, and I would welcome your correcting me by insisting that, contrary to my assumptions, you do not believe National Review and its stable of writers are racist.”

    Well, first of all, I rarely call any individual person “racist.” Someone checking back on the many posts I’ve made here over the years can verify that.

    Do I call people out on hypocrisy, double-standards, selective outrage, and selective memories regarding American history and society?

    Absolutely.

    Is the National Review a publication that has an anti-civil rights track record?

    Indisputably.

    >>>”Buckley said he had a few regrets, most notably his magazine’s opposition to civil rights legislation in the 1960s. “I think that the impact of that bill should have been welcomed by us,” he said.”

    Buckley Admits Review was Anti-Civil Rights

    Does the CURRENT version of the National Review and National Review Online publish, as Michelle would describe it, articles “obsessed with race”?

    Most assuredly, and I’ve provided the documentation.

    Is Dinesh D’Souza a “racist?”

    I posited a question, because Michelle declared that he wasn’t, based upon…I don’t know. I never called him one, because I can’t read his mind, or look into his soul like Bush did to Putin. Perhaps Michelle knows D’souza personally, and has had conversations…I truly don’t know.

    I would NOT DISMISS THE POSSIBILITY, however based upon his writings, editorial decisions, and mercenary use of inflammatory racial rhetoric.

    Does this mean that I believe EVERY writer at the National Review is a “racist?”

    I CANNOT for the same reason I can’t declare outright that D’souza is.

    But I’m NOT going to DISMISS the POSSIBILITY that there ARE racists who write and/or work for the National Review.

    Which dove tails into something I’ve repeatedly said on Discriminations, which is, you can be vehemently against Affirmative Action and not be a “racist.” That doesn’t diminish the fact that there are ALSO racists who are against Affirmative Action.

    I must admit that I do find it interesting that some people seem to go out of their way to defend the most outrageous statements by others, if not only for the fact that they agree with the “outrager” on ONE political stance or another.

    And that’s a bi-partisan, multicultural, equal opportunity pheonomenum.

    –Cobra

  37. Federal Dog July 3, 2006 at 7:26 am | | Reply

    Cobra–

    I will make this really, really simple for you.

    People who require throwing professional standards out the window do not enjoy “success”: Their elevation, despite their lack of merit, is an abusive fiction told at the direct expense of those who are qualified. I do not care who racially discriminates in favor of preferred races under AA: The resulting abuse is in no way “success.” It is, again, a politically correct fiction the true nature of which no one is confused about.

    If AA beneficiaries were of actual merit, they would, as a matter of logic, not require wholesale discrimination to advance in any field. Period. They would just compete as peers.

  38. John Rosenberg July 3, 2006 at 9:08 am | | Reply

    Cobra:

    Which dove tails into something I’ve repeatedly said on Discriminations, which is, you can be vehemently against Affirmative Action and not be a “racist.” That doesn’t diminish the fact that there are ALSO racists who are against Affirmative Action.

    That’s a fair statement, and I agree with it. Of course, it also “does not diminish the fact that there are ALSO racists” who are for Affirmative Action.

    As for your views on the NR stable of writers, I take your comment as a partial correction of my assumptions. You are not sure that not “EVERY” one is a racist. As for NR itself, your comment didn’t clarify your views very much for me. You certainly can’t “DISMISS THE POSSIBILITY” that it’s racist, since it willfully publishes writers of whom you are also unwilling to “DISMISS THE POSSIBILITY” of their racism.

    No need for you to repeat your view that it is “anti-civil rights,” since I readily acknowledge that by your definition anyone or any organization that opposes bestowing benefits based on race is anti-civil rights.

  39. Cobra July 3, 2006 at 12:36 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”That’s a fair statement, and I agree with it. Of course, it also “does not diminish the fact that there are ALSO racists” who are for Affirmative Action.”

    That’s a fair statement, and I agree with you as well.

    >>>”You are not sure that not “EVERY” one is a racist. As for NR itself, your comment didn’t clarify your views very much for me. You certainly can’t “DISMISS THE POSSIBILITY” that it’s racist, since it willfully publishes writers of whom you are also unwilling to “DISMISS THE POSSIBILITY” of their racism.”

    Again, I say this because I can only go on what is published, and what the authors of such articles have written in the past. I’m not present at the behind closed doors editorial meetings. Could there be a Texaco Tapes

    type of revelation, if somebody had the room wired? I don’t know. Would that be enough evidence for you, or people who defend the NR? I don’t know. But my mind stays open to the possibility that such a climate MAY exist based upon the what I’ve documented already.

    On to F-Dog:

    >>>”I will make this really, really simple for you.

    People who require throwing professional standards out the window do not enjoy “success”: Their elevation, despite their lack of merit, is an abusive fiction told at the direct expense of those who are qualified. I do not care who racially discriminates in favor of preferred races under AA: The resulting abuse is in no way “success.” It is, again, a politically correct fiction the true nature of which no one is confused about.

    If AA beneficiaries were of actual merit, they would, as a matter of logic, not require wholesale discrimination to advance in any field. Period. They would just compete as peers.”

    C’mon Dog. You can’t bring yourself to answer that simple question, can you?

    Is the success of Peter Kirsanow “real?”

    Are the accomplishments of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, “abusive fiction?”

    All those black Bush appointee lawyers…Heck, Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice? You want their quotes on Affirmative Action and why they SUPPORT it?

    Are they ALL according to your words:

    >>>”…a politically correct fiction the true nature of which no one is confused about.”

    Hey, you have the right to your opinion, Dog. I would just like to see you put those NAMES in the midst of your statements, so that there IS no “confusion” about what you really believe.

    Li writes:

    >>>”If you can’t prove it, then that’s too bad.”

    Well, there’s a fountain of morality. Is that your philosophy about how American society should run?

    “Everything’s perfectly legal if you can get away with it?”

    What part of the Constitution was that written in?

    Sheesh.

    Li writes:

    >>>”I think he’s a racist who calls everybody he disagrees with on this issue a racist. So what. Keep your eyes on the ball, getting rid of race quotas. Let him cry, whine, and name call all he wants. It means nothing.”

    Not at all. In fact as I mentioned before, I rarely call ANY individual who posts here a “racist”, and trust me, I’ve been called everything except a child of God on this blog over the years. And what’s with this “race quotas” stuff? Who’s advocating “race quotas?”

    Li writes:

    >>>”YOU BLACKS should have spent the last 40 years getting things together.”

    umm…That one speaks for itself.

    –Cobra

  40. David Nieporent July 4, 2006 at 12:37 am | | Reply

    I must admit that I do find it interesting that some people seem to go out of their way to defend the most outrageous statements by others, if not only for the fact that they agree with the “outrager” on ONE political stance or another.

    Agreed. For instance, someone who agrees with the thought that “Colin Powell is the only Black person in the Bush Administration who is Black in terms of political sensibilities.”

    Pure racism.

  41. Cobra July 4, 2006 at 2:16 am | | Reply

    David,

    I don’t know if I’d describe David Bositis’s opinion on Powell as “racist”, and furthermore, I don’t neccessarily agree with his premise. It is true, however, that you can count African American support of the Republican Party and its platform in the single digits percentage wise in most polls.

    –Cobra

  42. Cobra July 4, 2006 at 10:35 am | | Reply

    Upon further review, however, I find it interesting you find it EASY to define what Bositis writes as “pure racism”, but remain quite indecisive in describing a man who owned over 400 slaves, and a country that endorsed his slave owning status.

    More “selective outrage”, huh?

    –Cobra

  43. Li July 5, 2006 at 12:44 am | | Reply

    Cobra, yeah it does speak for itself. Its also true, unlike most ot the BS you post here on a regular basis.

    Slavery ended over 140 years ago. Whites ended it. It didn’t happen to you, it happend to someone else. Get over it. Nobody has to like you. And in about 10-15 years, nobody will have to hire you either. Then we’ll see how far your venom-spitter gets ya’.

    Please continue your internet palaver while people are working to end the race quota charity jobs in the real world. That’s very productive. You’ll notice I spent about 10 minutes (too many) responding to your usual BS. You however, have spent years here (as I check in every few months or so). Still didn’t stop the tide from turning though, did ya’? Haven’t changed anybody’s mind either, have ya’? A big waste of time, huh?

    But please don’t let me or anybody else hinder the river of useless arguments which comprise your empty soliloquies. Somewhere, the white devil is laughing at the sheer waste. All in all, its very entertaining!

  44. David Nieporent July 5, 2006 at 1:48 am | | Reply

    Cobra: not at all. It’s a lot easier to label a statement, or a policy than it is to label a person or a country, since a person or a country is a collection of many statements and policies. Slavery in the U.S. was of course racist. I have no indecision there.

    But that was a complete red herring, of course; it had nothing to do with the point, which is this: the statement “gambling is bad” is either true or false — Bill Bennett saying it doesn’t change its truth or falsity. The statement “slavery is wrong” is true. It doesn’t matter whether it was said by George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. It’s the same statement. The statement’s truth value doesn’t change depending on the identity of the speaker.

    Kirsanow’s statements are either right or wrong. If they’re wrong, you have to show that they’re wrong by pointing out where they’re wrong. Pointing out Kirsanow’s personal flaws, if any, is irrelevant.

  45. Cobra July 5, 2006 at 8:12 pm | | Reply

    Li,

    I really can’t make a reply that will be any more supportive of my arguments than what you’ve posted.

    Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

    David writes:

    >>>”Kirsanow’s statements are either right or wrong.”

    There you go with the moral absolutism again. Kirsanow isn’t discussing physics, where there applicable laws that cannot be altered by opinion.

    >>>”If they’re wrong, you have to show that they’re wrong by pointing out where they’re wrong. Pointing out Kirsanow’s personal flaws, if any, is irrelevant.”

    But that’s exactly the point. “Right” or “Wrong” is not neccessarily synonymous with “True” and “False”. Take the linked statement by Kirsanow here:

    >>>”The black students who do graduate still lag far behind white students in academic competency — the gap that prevailed upon matriculation largely persists through graduation.”

    Now review the bio of Kirsanow, a black man who graduated college:

    >>>”Chair of the board of directors of the Center for New Black Leadership, Mr. Kirsanow also serves on the advisory board of the National Center for Public Policy Research. He received his B.A. in 1976 from Cornell University and his J.D. with honors in 1979 from Cleveland State University, where he served as articles editor of the Cleveland State Law Review.”

    As I’ve alluded, pointed, and darn built a neon sign to for the majority of this thread, Kirsanow as a person IMPEACHES his own statement.

    –Cobra

Leave a Reply to David Nieporent Click here to cancel reply.