We last encountered Newsweek contributing editor Ellis Cose and his establishment views of affirmative action here, not long ago. Now he’s at it again, this time with an OpEd in the Baltimore Sun.
Cose of course equates affirmative action with fairness, as indicated by the title of his piece, “Affirmative Action Slips, But Will Fairness Stand?” As a perfect representative of establishment opinion on race, he, also of course, laments the fact that the masses in Michigan didn’t listen to their betters.
The vote [on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative] was a strong repudiation of the Michigan establishment. Virtually everyone who mattered opposed the measure; still, it passed (58 to 42 percent)
No one among the 58% majority, obviously, matters.
Cose, of course, is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to his own facts, which are as far from accurate as his opinions are from persuasive. He states — and this statement, unlike what precedes and follows it, is quite sensible — that
[p]recisely because California has already gone down that road [of abolishing public racial preferences], understanding what happened there is fundamental to understanding what may happen in Michigan.
Indeed it is. But that understanding is undermined, not enhanced, by statements like this:
Before the proposition’s passage, its proponents were fond of arguing that minority students would benefit because they would finally be free of the “stigma” associated with affirmative action. California’s experience seems to say that assumption is not necessarily true – at least not yet. For example, Kimberly Griffin, a black UCLA graduate student in higher education, says she routinely encounters students who assume that she met some lower standard to get in.
Excuse me, but is one graduate student’s comment (dated when?) sufficient evidence for this assertion about “California’s experience.” Does Cose actually believe that lowering the bar for minority admissions does not produce the quite reasonable (because it is accurate) assumption that many minorities were admitted who would not have been admitted without the preferences given them? Or, correspondingly, does he really want to argue that evaluating all applicants based on their qualifications without regard to their race will not make the assumption of undeserved admission of minorities unreasonable, because it will be inaccurate? If he wants to argue either of those propositions he’ll need to produce more evidence than the word of one UCLA graduate student in education.
Or consider this Cose assertion:
It is also far from clear, as proponents of Proposition 209 insisted would be the case, that barring consideration of race results in a better match between university and student. Or that it improves graduation rates, since students who got into school on the basis of “merit,” as opposed to affirmative action, supposedly would be more likely to succeed. On that question the evidence seems mixed at best.
What “evidence” would that be? Hard to say, since Cose doesn’t present any here. I’ve not made an exhaustive study of post-209 California, but even a cursory search turns up a great deal of evidence indicating that Cose is simply wrong. I’ve cited some of it here, such as:
the numbers of minorities in the University of California system have now surpassed their pre-209 levels, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. For a graphic depiction of the freshman enrollment by race in the University of California and the California State University systems from 1997 (the last year before Prop. 209 took effect) through 2005, take a look at the graphs here.
As you will see, the racial group most affected by the ending of race preferences in California is whites: their proportion of entering freshmen fell from 40% in 1997 to 34% in 2005. Two minority groups saw their proportion of entering freshmen increase: Asians, whose proportion rose from 37% in 1997 to 41% in 2005; and Latinos, who rose from 13% to 16%. The proportion of blacks fell from 4% in 1997 to 3% in 2005.
Regarding graduation rates, I wrote that
[e]ven the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, an ardent supporter of racial preferences, noted in 2002 that the University of California at Berkeley’s “black student graduation rate has improved by 12 percentage points over the past seven years.” During that same period the black graduation rate at the University of Michigan fell by 5%.
And, I should have added, it was abysmally low at the University of Michigan to begin with.
Rich Lowry (quoted in my former post) has also commented on the increased minority graduation rates after the passage of Proposition 209:
The redistribution of minorities within the UC system has had the benefit of increasing minority graduation rates. According to a law-review article by Eryn Hadley of the Pacific Legal Foundation, the black graduation rate at Berkley for the freshman class entering in 1998 after the passage of Prop. 209 increased 6.5 percent. UCLA law professor Richard Sander notes that black students at UC San Diego had a four-year graduation rate of 26 percent in 1995-1996 and a 52 percent rate in 1999-2001.
I wonder whether Cose has even considered evidence such as the following:
under affirmative action, only 18 % of blacks and 22 % of Hispanics who were admitted to Berkeley graduated in 1982. The graduation rate for blacks and Hispanics who were not admitted under affirmative action was 42 % and 55 % respectively. [citing Guernsey, Jo Ann Bren. Affirmative Action: A Problem or a Remedy? Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Co., 1997]
Cose claims the evidence is “mixed” regarding whether there is now a better match between minorities and University of California campuses than there was in the era of preferential admissions, but, again, he cites no evidence. I wonder if he’s aware of what John McWhorter found (also quoted in my former post):
The year before preferences were banned at the University of California, exactly one black freshman made honors at the University of California San Diego. But in 1999 after the ban, 20% of the honors freshmen at San Diego were black. The reason was that black students who formerly were admitted to the flagship schools — UC Berkeley and UCLA — under the bar, now placed into fine second-tier schools like UC San Diego. This is not resegregation but reshuffling, and those who fail to see progress in it are saying no as a gesture, not out of sincere concern.
Cose concludes by asserting that “[d]espite the California experience, few people involved in the early debates seem much interested in revising their old assumptions.” I would put that a different way. I would say that the “California experience” has for the most part confirmed the optimistic predictions of Prop. 209’s supporters and confounded the predictions of its opponents that the sky would fall if the state were forced to treat its citizens without regard to their race.
It is the opponents of colorblind equality who have trouble with the evidence from California and Washington. Supporters of 209 have not revised our assumptions because they have been proved correct — and also because our belief in treating people without regard to race is based, fundamentally, on the principle of racial equality, not on a prediction of its effects.
The diversiphiles don’t want diversity, they want homogeneity. A truly diverse America would not have 15% blacks in every college. It would have some colleges mostly black, some mostly white, some mostly Asian or Latino.
John McWhorter writes:
>>>”The reason was that black students who formerly were admitted to the flagship schools — UC Berkeley and UCLA — under the bar, now placed into fine second-tier schools like UC San Diego. This is not resegregation but reshuffling, and those who fail to see progress in it are saying no as a gesture, not out of sincere concern.”
Leave it to a Manhattan Institute-funded professional black conservative to come up with yet another euphemism for “separate but almost equal” policies…
“reshuffling”
Homer Plessy should’ve been simply “reshuffled” to another car on the train.
Rosa Parks was should’ve been “reshuffled” to the back of the bus.
George Wallace should have simply said..
“Reshuffling now, Reshuffling tommorrow, Reshuffling forever!”
But, truly…is McWhorter’s argument that a degree from UC San Diego is worth the same in the job market as a degree from UC Berkeley and UCLA? A “fine second-tier” school, as he describes it, reminds me of when my father went to the movies in the Jim Crow south and had to sit in the “second-tier” (balcony).
Yeah, Yeah…I know. The Anti-Affirmative Action Types will say:
“But Cobra, those were fine second-tier seats, and at least he had the same opportunity to see the movie as white movie-goers did.”
Sorry, folks. No amount of pro-white-think-tank financed black shills will change the majority opinion of African-America on this one.
–Cobra
But, truly…is McWhorter’s argument that a degree from UC San Diego is worth the same in the job market as a degree from UC Berkeley and UCLA?
I think McWhorter’s argument is that an honors degree from UCSD is worth as much as an average degree from Berkeley or UCLA — and worth infinitely more than flunking out of Berkeley or UCLA.
Homer Plessy should’ve been simply “reshuffled” to another car on the train.
Uh, yeah. Another car… which has plenty of whites on it like UCSD.
Sorry, folks. No amount of pro-white-think-tank financed black shills will change the majority opinion of African-America on this one.
As usual, Cobra resorts to ad hominem because he knows his arguments are morally and intellectually bankrupt. Every time someone disagrees with him, he simply calls him a racist (if white) or accuses him of being funded by racists (if black). The problem with that argument — besides the logical fallacy — is that McWhorter has been saying these things for years, when he was a Berkeley linguistics professor, long before he had anything to do with the Manhattan Institute.
As for the “majority opinion of African-America,” assuming Cobra speaks for it, I think that says more about the problems with the majority of “African-America” than anything else. Screaming “racist” to play on white guilt works less and less effectively as each year passes, and it obviously does nothing to actually help blacks succeed.
… is McWhorter’s argument that a degree from UC San Diego is worth the same in the job market as a degree from UC Berkeley and UCLA?
Is your argument that the degree of a black admitted to Berkeley because of preferences (assuming he or she actually graduates) is worth as much as the degree of a black admitted to Berkeley after being evaluated according to the same standard as everyone else (who is much more likely to graduate), i.e., without any preference?
Blacks actually brand themselves as handicapped by demanding special treatment instead of equal treatment and regarding a belief in equal treatment as “pro-white.” As long as they continue to do so it should come as no surprise that many whites will agree with this assessment.
Incidentally, John, we’ve heard for a decade about the alleged statistically horrible results of Prop 209 in California. But we don’t hear these people ever citing stats about I-200 in Washington. I wonder if they’re far less superficially impressive.
I’ve known more than a few college dropouts in my time (friends, family, and former classmates). Most state universities aren’t very picky about admissions, even at the best campuses, because they need a certain minimum student body (where I went, there was a requirement that >80% of the admissions were in-state students). These universities still require a certain level of work, and thus attrition as people can’t hack it keeps quality in line. I’m sure Harvard and MIT have high graduation rates because they pick people who are intellectually able to get through the programs. My Dad went to Clemson in the 70s, majoring in electrical engineering, which wasn’t too particular about letting people in but the attrition rate was horrendous. But tuition and fees weren’t that expensive then. Now that college is more expensive, it’s seen as misleading to let people in who are unprepared for university-level work.
Luckily, there’s education past high school for all levels. I have relatives who would not have survived engineering at Clemson, or even a communications course at NC State (where I went), but went to local colleges. No, their degrees aren’t prestigious compared to Berkeley BAs, but they would never have gotten BAs from Berkeley.
The question is: is it more important that individuals be admitted based on probable success or that certain groups have certain %ages of the incoming class? Is it okay to let in people whose prior history show likely failure? Is that okay considering how much books, fees, room & board, whatever is left after non-loan financial aid is applied?
People used to expect such a high attrition rate at colleges – it was part of proving that you really deserved the degree. But I think people think it’s unacceptable to let things go like that nowadays in the U.S.
John writes:
>>>”Blacks actually brand themselves as handicapped by demanding special treatment instead of equal treatment and regarding a belief in equal treatment as “pro-white.” As long as they continue to do so it should come as no surprise that many whites will agree with this assessment.”
Why John, you won’t ever catch me denying that many whites believe blacks to be “handicapped” or inferior. Readers of “Discriminations” can see that for themselves all the time in post thread after post thread.
John writes:
>>>”Is your argument that the degree of a black admitted to Berkeley because of preferences (assuming he or she actually graduates) is worth as much as the degree of a black admitted to Berkeley after being evaluated according to the same standard as everyone else (who is much more likely to graduate), i.e., without any preference?”
A WHITE MAN with a degree from Berkeley is where on your pecking order?
Obviously, you’re implying that every white face that attends Berkeley is irrefutably, unquestionably qualified to be there, and every non-white face most be vigorously scrutinized.
You’re application of the “black tax” in this equation is a prime example of what people on my side of the debate have been talking about since day one.
>>>”‘Black tax’ — the tithe that binds
By Jody Armour, JODY ARMOUR is a professor at USC School of Law.
November 20, 2005
(…)
The black tax is the price blacks (and other minorities) pay in our daily
lives because of racial stereotypes. Like a tax, racial discrimination is
persistent, pervasive and seemingly inevitable — as in “Nothing in life is certain
save death and taxes.” And just as the state collects general taxes, blacks
often regard state representatives such as police and judges as IRS agents
for the black tax.
But while tax regimes are typically either regressive (falling mainly on the
poor) or progressive (falling mainly on the privileged), the black tax falls
on both as indifferently as rain.
It falls on poor minorities in the redlining — charging higher prices — in
their neighborhoods by services ranging from banking to pizza delivery; in
the greater exposure to environmental toxins, and in the greater concentration
of crumbling schools and hospitals.
The black tax also falls on privileged minorities — those who parlay
diplomas, athletic ability or big box office into impressive portfolios, “desirable”
ZIP Codes and pricey schools — in the profiling that their pedigrees won’t
ward off. Neither my Harvard and Berkeley degrees nor chaired law school
professorship gained me a tax exemption. The face of crime for most Americans is
black.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-armour20nov20,0,4140671.
story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions_
David writes:
>>>”As for the “majority opinion of African-America,” assuming Cobra speaks for it, I think that says more about the problems with the majority of “African-America” than anything else.”
I don’t speak for African-America. I speak for Cobra. Polling data suggests that most of African-America agrees with my position in support of Affirmative Action. That white males like yourself oppose it is also evident in the polling data. No surprises either way.
David writes:
>>>”Screaming “racist” to play on white guilt works less and less effectively as each year passes, and it obviously does nothing to actually help blacks succeed.”
As the white birth rate in America continues to stagnate, and with the influx of darker skinned immigrants, in the VERY near future “white guilt” will be irrelevant. Non-white voting MAJORITIES will have the final say. What wonderful proposals and propositions do you think the oppressed majorites will come up with, David?
David writes:
>>>”Every time someone disagrees with him, he simply calls him a racist (if white) or accuses him of being funded by racists (if black). The problem with that argument — besides the logical fallacy — is that McWhorter has been saying these things for years, when he was a Berkeley linguistics professor, long before he had anything to do with the Manhattan Institute.”
Appeasement and collaboration with white conservatives for self-preservation or personal gain didn’t start with McWhorter, and certainly won’t end with him, either.
By the way, John McWhorter is a black man who was a Professor at Berkeley. Was he more qualified to acquire that position than any other available white man?
How did he earn that PhD from Stanford, anyway? Certainly, there MUST have been some more deserving white or Asian student whose seat McWhorter shoplifted somehow.
Do you hold McWhorter to the same standards that you hold the African-American students of today, or do you give him and other professional black conservatives a pass because they obeisantly follow the script provided by their white benefactors?
I bet I know the answer to that one, David.
–Cobra
Cobra:
As the white birth rate in America continues to stagnate, and with the influx of darker skinned immigrants, in the VERY near future “white guilt” will be irrelevant. Non-white voting MAJORITIES will have the final say. What wonderful proposals and propositions do you think the oppressed majorites will come up with, David?
Leaving aside the absurdity of talking about “oppressed majorities” in a democracy, you’re rather mistakenly optimistic (if that’s the right word here) about your coming demographic triumph. Even assuming that you can convince Asians and white Hispanics to go along with your campaign of black preferences forever, the census bureau, factoring in both birthrates and immigration, projects the white, non-hispanic population to remain a majority of the U.S. population until 2060.
That’s hardly the “VERY near future.” But wait — even achieving your goal 54 years from now is optimistic; it depends, as I noted, on convincing other ethnic groups to stand by you. But if white Hispanics deem themselves white rather than Hispanic, then whites remain the vast majority of the U.S. population LONG beyond 2060. (The census bureau stops projecting at the year 2100, at which point the total white population is still 70% of the nation’s population.)
Unless you plan to wait until George Bush IV is president, you’re going to have to come up with another strategy to help the black community besides “Hope that eventually enough Hispanics immigrate to the U.S. and vote for black preferences.”
Appeasement and collaboration with white conservatives for self-preservation or personal gain didn’t start with McWhorter, and certainly won’t end with him, either.
McWhorter was a tenured professor — so he didn’t need “self-preservation” — at Berkeley — so allying with “white conservatives” was hardly the way to “personal gain.” And you’re back to ad hominem. You can’t refute his arguments by analyzing his motives.
By the way, John McWhorter is a black man who was a Professor at Berkeley. Was he more qualified to acquire that position than any other available white man? How did he earn that PhD from Stanford, anyway? Certainly, there MUST have been some more deserving white or Asian student whose seat McWhorter shoplifted somehow.
Do you hold McWhorter to the same standards that you hold the African-American students of today, or do you give him and other professional black conservatives a pass because they obeisantly follow the script provided by their white benefactors?
I hold everyone to the same standard: I judge them as individuals, not based on their race. If I’m allowed to; race preference advocates don’t want us to do that. I don’t know enough about linguistics to know whether he was best qualified; in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I see no reason why not. I’ve read his books for laypeople on the subject and they seem impressive (but, as I said, how should I know?)
I bet I know the answer to that one, David.
I know your answer to that: you think that black people aren’t smart enough to get into college without racial preferences or smart enough to form their own opinions without following a “script” written by white people.
You might learn something if you read “Losing the Race,” instead of dismissing him as just a “black conservative.”
Blacks attending UCSD instead of UCLA is reinstituting the separate but equal doctrine? When did UCSD become an all black university? Have slogans so completely overriden thought people can make such ridiculous arguments with a straight face?