Arab American News Opposes Equal Treatment

The Arab American News of Dearborn, Michigan, supports racial and ethnic preferences. (I believe this policy is misguided but not self-interested since, to the best of my knowledge, Arabs don’t receive preferential treatment in college admissions, etc., in Michigan.)

The language of this proposal, and California’s proposition 209, are similar. They are intended to achieve the same result — turning back the gains of minorities’ access to education.

How odd, and depressing, that anyone, or the representative of any ethnic group, would think that “language” that bans all state preferences based on race or ethnicity is “turning back the gains of minorities’ access to education.”

Do we really want to give qualified minorities in Michigan incentive to attend school out-of-state, where they will be made to feel welcome? This is essentially telling the African-American and Hispanic communities here to send their future leaders elsewhere.

So, minorities only feel “welcome” where, because of their race or ethnicity, they are treated better than other people?

Give me a break. Or, much better, give me a Supreme Court that will interpret the Fourteenth Amendment and the civil rights laws correctly, i.e., requiring all states and all organizations covered by civil rights legislation to treat everyone without regard to race.

Say What? (13)

  1. Curtis Crawford October 21, 2006 at 12:46 pm | | Reply

    John, your reports and running commentary on the issues in the battle concerning the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative have been a splendid help. Thank you.

  2. superdestroyer October 21, 2006 at 1:19 pm | | Reply

    John,

    I think you would be amazed at how many Arabs have learned the racial spoils system enough to cehck the African-American box when interacting with the government. Such actions partially explain their support for preferences. In addition, they may someday believes that they can get some of the racial spoils system for themselves.

  3. Chetly Zarko October 21, 2006 at 3:14 pm | | Reply

    The promise of preferences is alluring to every group. It is, by defintion, group-identity politics, perhaps the most subtly but most damaging effect on democracy that preferences portend. It is a path to national self-destruction, it has been a path to ethnic cleansing in the past, and a path to the longest millenia-running conflicts the world still experiences.

  4. dchamil October 22, 2006 at 8:56 am | | Reply

    Great idea, superdestroyer. Who knows what remote ancestor may have been black? With the “one drop” rule, any white can check the Afro box in good conscience if it appears to be advantageous. The obvious countermove will then be for administrators to try to determine the precise degree of blackness with genetic testing. Brave New World, indeed.

  5. Cobra October 22, 2006 at 11:57 am | | Reply

    Chetly Zarko writes:

    >>>”The promise of preferences is alluring to every group.”

    That’s the TRUEST line you’ve ever posted here, Chetly. And you’re ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. It’s a shame that many on your side of this argument can’t admit that in America, there is STILL a DISTINCT advantage to being White, particularly male.

    Now, we’ve had numerous arguments in the past, but I’ve never come to the conclusion, after your posts, that you were in denial of the reality that is white privilege, which is the irrefutable social legacy of America.

    Thank you, Chetly for this refreshing, albeit brief oasis of intellectual honesty.

    –Cobra

  6. Agog October 22, 2006 at 1:11 pm | | Reply

    About thirty years ago I knew a Polish guy who was a good student in high school but was far from being an academic hotshot. He took a flyer on applying to an “elite, highly selective” institution which shall go nameless. (Except to say it is a well-known private school located in a rural town in the midwest. Excellent football reputation.) The rest of us just laughed when he told us he had applied.

    He got in. Our class valedictorian did not.

    Turns out, he sheepishly admitted to us years later, that in filling out his application he checked the box for “Native American”.

    There was nothing calculated or fraudulent in his doing that. He was taking senior Civics when he filled out his applicaion. He remembered that there were two ways to become a citizen — naturalization and being born here (i.e., being “native” born.) He figured since he was born here he was a “native” American and so he checked that box. It was not until later that he learned it meant something quite different, at least it did to universities in admissions.

    He is convinced the fact that he checked the wrong box — or right box, as it turned out — is why he got admitted. What is most remarkable about this story is that no one at the university ever thought to follow up on how it came to pass that this Polish kid with mostly consonants in his name also happened to be a “Native American”.

  7. John Rosenberg October 22, 2006 at 4:24 pm | | Reply

    Curtis – Thank you!

    Agog – Names (and boxes) can be funny. Recall that the plaintiff in the case that brought an end to racially exclusive scholarships in the Fourth Circuit, Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2001 (1995), was brought by a University of Maryland student named Daniel Podberesky. (I’ve referred to that case many times, such as here.)

    Mr. Podberesky is Hispanic, and thus was ineligible for Banneker scholarships, which were limited to blacks.

  8. vnjagvet October 22, 2006 at 8:00 pm | | Reply

    Cobra has a way with the specious argument:

    “[t]here is STILL a DISTINCT advantage to being White, particularly male”.

    That is, unless you have the exact same SAT scores, essay score, grades and activities as a white female or any person with african american, hispanic, american indian or other “preferred” ancestry. Then, you do not get equal protection under current interpretation of the law.

  9. Cobra October 22, 2006 at 8:58 pm | | Reply

    vnjagvet writes:

    >>>”That is, unless you have the exact same SAT scores, essay score, grades and activities as a white female or any person with african american, hispanic, american indian or other “preferred” ancestry. Then, you do not get equal protection under current interpretation of the law.”

    How would that theory of yours work if an “african american, hispanic, american indian or other “preferred” ancestry tried to buy a home in Livonia, MI (the whitest city in America), or when it came to government contracts, hiring, wages, prison sentencing, small business loans, etc?

    Do you really NEED me to post the LITANY of statistics that will tell you what you already know about the built-in white male advantages in American Society? Trust me, I’ve filled many a screen at “Discriminations” already.

    You see, what the Affirmative Action Types have done, quite effectively if you ask me, is narrow the entire Michigan discrimination argument into:

    “Telegenic white coed gets waiting-listed at her ONLY choice of elite public schools–an attrocity so heinous that the whole system must be CHANGED for her suffering.”

    I admit, this type of niche marketing is very effective in a nation of now 300 Million people, because there’s a large enough block of white Michiganers who will empathize with the telegenic “damsel-in-distress”, and sheer population demographics may win the day for their cause.

    –Cobra

  10. Agog October 23, 2006 at 9:51 am | | Reply

    Cobra writes

    >>How would that theory of yours work if an “african american, hispanic, american indian or other “preferred” ancestry tried to buy a home in Livonia, MI (the whitest city in America), or when it came to government contracts, hiring, wages, prison sentencing, small business loans, etc?

  11. vnjagvet October 23, 2006 at 12:04 pm | | Reply

    Thanks, Agog.

    Cobra is also good at changing the subject when he is on the defensive.

    Way to get him back on point.

  12. superdestroyer October 23, 2006 at 12:16 pm | | Reply

    Let’s look at Cobra’s paragraph

    How would that theory of yours work if an “african american, hispanic, american indian or other “preferred” ancestry…. or when it came to government contracts, hiring, wages, prison sentencing, small business loans, etc?

    For government contracting, being a minority is a plus, just look up the 8a program. In the rules, just claiming to be an American Indian moves you to the top of the list. In hiring, should we all remember the civil service exams where blacks were given extra points, or lower scoring black policement were promoted over whites. One can also look up the percentage of civil servants that are black. As far as crime goes, every look at the percent of acquitals in Baltimore, Newark, or Detriot. As as far as loans go, the government does sponsor a minority only small business program. Try to get a government contract doing dry wall if you are not a minority (and by the way, white women no longer quality under 8A).

  13. Cobra October 24, 2006 at 8:16 am | | Reply

    Superdestroyer writes:

    >>>”For government contracting, being a minority is a plus, just look up the 8a program. ”

    And after the MCRI does what Prop 209 did in California, it will be a MINUS.

    MCRI=ADVANTAGE White Male Contractors.

    EVEN WITH Affirmative Action, I have cited studies such as Devah Pager’s that show that white FELONS have better odds at entry level employment than African Americans with NO CRIMINAL RECORD. After the MCRI?

    MCRI=ADVANTAGE White Employment.

    TODAY, minorities receive stiffer penalties:

    >>>”A BJS study shed some light on this question. It looked at sentencing patterns for whites, blacks, and Hispanics — both before and after implementation of the sentencing guidelines authorized by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the mandatory minimum imprisonment provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The study’s findings are troubling.

    It found that, before full implementation of sentencing guidelines, black, white, and Hispanic offenders received similar sentences, on average, in federal district courts. However, after implementation of the sentencing guidelines, minority offenders were incarcerated at higher rates than white offenders. Some 85 percent of Hispanic offenders and 78 percent of black offenders were incarcerated following the sentencing guidelines, compared with 72 percent of white offenders.

    Moreover, the study found that sentences were longer for African-Americans than for whites. Black offenders had sentences that were, on average, 41 percent longer than sentences for whites. Even when researchers took into account legitimate differences in offense characteristics, sentences were still longer for blacks.”

    http://www.usdoj.gov/dag/speech/2001/092801congblackcaucus.htm

    But you wouldn’t know any of this reading your post, or frankly, MOST POSTS on “Discriminations”, because of the constant and selective outrage at the apparently dismal prospect of being part the white controlling majority in America.

    Agog writes:

    >>>”Theory works great. Anybody belonging to any of those groups who has enough money (cash or credit) can buy a house in Livonia. Someone who denies them the opportunity to purchase that house because of race or ethnicity is breaking the law. They could and should be criminally prosecuted and held civilly liable.”

    Oh yes. If you get discriminatate against, go to a TRIAL LAWYER(a favorite group among conservatives) or report it to the Bush Administration’s neo-con CRC appointees who don’t believe racism exists anymore.

    I get the game, my friend. I really do.

    –Cobra

Say What?