In a column devoted largely to discussing the often-discussed (see here , citing others) prominence of foreigners among the beneficiaries of racial preference at selective colleges, Clarence Page says we now need to concentrate on “how opportunities can be opened to everyone who was left behind by the civil rights revolution.”
I wonder what Page means by “the civil rights revolution.” I think it means the belated recognition, in American law and life, that every citizen has a fundamental right to be treated “without regard” to race, creed, or color.
Now, who exactly does that “leave behind”?
John, you conveniently left out Mr. Page’s last sentence with respect to economic class. Yes, I clicked on the link and read the article by Mr. Page. I believe this is what he means by being left behind: those who have been disadvantaged due to economic class.
While I don’t deny that this isn’t true, those for whom the whole issue of race is uncomfortable try to talk around race by lifting up other areas of diversity.
I didn’t “conveniently” leave it out. It was just an additional part of his non-sequitur. The “civil rights revolution” didn’t “leave behind” people who are poor. They too gained the right to be free from discrimination. The fact that the civil rights revolution didn’t make them un-poor doesn’t mean it left them behind or otherwise failed them. Class-based preferences may or may not be a good idea, but I don’t think they have anything to do with the civil rights revolution
Miss Profe and others seem to find it a travesty that lower economic classes aren’t proportionately enrolled in college. If economic success is correlated with intelligence, then isn’t this disproportionality a good rather than a bad sign?
If it turns out that the poor are just as smart as the rich, then we probably do have a problem that needs addressing. Unfortunately many people confuse equal opportunity with equal results and fancy equality in society like maintenance of a compost heap. They want to turnover the pile so that equal numbers of the poor and the rich trade places as some sort of proof of equal opportunity.
Since intelligence is a heavily genetic trait, and if the rich are significantly smarter than the poor, disproportionate college enrollment by economic class makes uncommonly good sense. Equal opportunity — yes! Equal results — no!
Correlating intelligence with wealth is one of the most irresponsible comments I have ever read. But, at least you’re honest with respect to to your viewpoint.
Miss Profe: If “correlating intelligence with wealth is one of the most irresponsible comments” you’ve heard, what is the motivation we dangle for children to finish high school and go to college for? Aren’t we overtly attempting to deploy their intellect, whether from exaulted or humble background, into remunerative rewards? Aren’t we somehow trying to turn the ‘smart’ into the ‘rich’?
Should we cling to the proposition that mastery of intellectual skills is its own unrecompensed reward?
How do we compete for the hearts and minds of kids who believe that NBA contracts or hip-hop recording contracts are the only pathes to riches unless we entice them with the financial rewards that study and intellect might yield?
We want to turn the ‘smart’ into the ‘rich’. And we shouldn’t care that rich children are more likely to go to college than the children of the not-so-bright and consequently poor. This is not a pernicious inequality as much as it is a by-product of success. We meet our societal obligation by assuring that all bright children can attend college, instead of presuming that equality requires proportionality between the rich and the poor especially if it turns out that the rich are smarter than the poor.
It’s just that there are plenty of people with money, and their lack of intelligence had nothing to do with its production.