Discriminations

This is no more surprising than how the recent poll of American muslims has been portrayed in the main stream media. The poll showed that over 100,000 American muslims support terrorism and groups that murder Americans. The main stream media portrayed the statistics by claiming the American muslims were largely assimilated into American culture. (Duh, except for the ones that want to murder Americans...)

What remains unchanged are the unwillingness or inability of affirmative action's supporters to admit that what they favor is racial or gender preference, and the magnificent clarity by which you expose their hypocrisy.

Curtis Crawford writes:

>>>"What remains unchanged are the unwillingness or inability of affirmative action's supporters to admit that what they favor is racial or gender preference, and the magnificent clarity by which you expose their hypocrisy."

Do you believe that anti-affirmative action types will actually ADMIT that there are distinct advantages to being white in America when it comes to hiring, promotion, wages, law enforcement, health care, education, housing and voting rights?

And if they DO actually admit the existance of these advantages (which I've humbly documented with statistics for years on this blog), which group is actually being the more hypocritical in regards to racial preferences?

--Cobra

Cobra, let's assume for the sake of argument that you're not just trotting out the same flawed studies over and over again, and that these "advantages" (which might better be termed "disparities") do in fact exist.

How does that make people who oppose racial preferences "hypocritical"? The argument against racial preferences -- certainly John's argument -- is not "There are no disparities between blacks and whites," but rather that racial discrimination is wrong. Showing (if you have) that racial discrimination exists does not negate that proposition.

Thinking about my previous comment, I felt it veered from the point I meant to make. It is certainly true that affirmative action supporters are unwilling or unable to admit that what they favor is racial or gender preference for minorities or women against whites or males.

But this is not the core of the fault displayed in Pew's summary of its survey. The core was the failure to admit that although a majority of those polled supported "affirmative action," a majority OPPOSED "preferential treatment." Apparently Pew's devotion to "affirmative action" is so strong and unthinking that they can't or won't accurately summarize their own poll.

In response to Cobra, I assume that whites/males sometimes discriminate against minorities/women, based on their race/sex. I oppose such discrimination as strongly as I oppose reverse discrimination. I see no value in ignoring or downplaying such discrimination, whatever its direction.

Cobra asks:

Do you believe that anti-affirmative action types will actually ADMIT that there are distinct advantages to being white in America when it comes to hiring, promotion, wages, law enforcement, health care, education, housing and voting rights?

Well, speaking as an “anti-affirmative act type,” I have no reluctance admitting (or even ADMITting) that there are still some advantages to being white in this society. Indeed, I suspect I am far more willing to ADMIT that some such “advantages” still exist than “affirmative action types” are to admit that often -- especially in college admission, hiring, promotion, to pick items from Cobra’s list -- the advantages actually lie with those of darker hues.

But, as others have said, any residual white “advantages” are generally irrelevant to what is discussed here. That is because it is not the business of the state, or of “civil rights” policy, to ensure the equal distribution of “advantages” by taking them away from some on the basis of their race alone and giving them to others on the basis of their race alone. The only exception to the above rule is where the advantage of an individual, identifiable white person resulted from discrimination against an individual, identifiable black person. That’s because discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. If it weren’t, there’d be nothing wrong with white “advantages” that resulted directly from racial discrimination.

David writes:

>>>"How does that make people who oppose racial preferences "hypocritical"? The argument against racial preferences -- certainly John's argument -- is not "There are no disparities between blacks and whites," but rather that racial discrimination is wrong. Showing (if you have) that racial discrimination exists does not negate that proposition."

That's an interesting train of thought. This would make the conscious white anti-affirmative action type position:

~~I admit that I enjoy race preferences as a white person, but I will fight to destroy any race preferences non-whites may receive.~~

How can that not be read as ANYTHING BUT hypocritical?

Curtis Crawford writes:

>>>"In response to Cobra, I assume that whites/males sometimes discriminate against minorities/women, based on their race/sex. I oppose such discrimination as strongly as I oppose reverse discrimination. I see no value in ignoring or downplaying such discrimination, whatever its direction."

I've been reading this blog for a LONG time now, Curtis. I would assume you have as well. Be HONEST, and tell me which type of "discrimination" is "ignored" or "downplayed" here, and which type of "discrimination" is emphasized and hilighted.
Then tell me what the majority of your PREVIOUS posts here trend in regards to your "opposition."

John writes:

>>>"Well, speaking as an “anti-affirmative act type,” I have no reluctance admitting (or even ADMITting) that there are still some advantages to being white in this society. Indeed, I suspect I am far more willing to ADMIT that some such “advantages” still exist than “affirmative action types” are to admit that often -- especially in college admission, hiring, promotion, to pick items from Cobra’s list -- the advantages actually lie with those of darker hues."

John, how many studies do I have to wheel out here regarding the discrimination African-Ameicans, Hispanic-Americans and Native Americas face in hiring and promotion? How many studies do I have to bring out here showing the inferiority of educational opportunities for K-12 minorities as opposed to whites? They far OVERWHELM the "reverse racism" think-tank studies and teary-eyed blonde coed cheerleader annecdotes offered as evidence from your side, IMHO.

But I do get you, John. And I hear what you're saying.

YES, if you instated a mythological principle of "color-blindness", then taking race and ethnicity into account during hiring, promotion or college admission would be "wrong."

But what you won't seriously consider in your posts, is that if you also applied this mythological principle of "color-blindness" to American Society (which is surely a fantasy, but purely hypothetical, that could NEVER be enforced) whites would theoretically lose THEIR advantages.

Of course, it's not Constitutional. So basically, you're making a more detailed and scholarly approach to the same selective outrage argument I've been leveling at your movement for years.

--Cobra

That's an interesting train of thought. This would make the conscious white anti-affirmative action type position:

~~I admit that I enjoy race preferences as a white person, but I will fight to destroy any race preferences non-whites may receive.~~

How can that not be read as ANYTHING BUT hypocritical?

(I should note that this is John's position, not exactly mine. As a libertarian, I believe that there ought to be no race preferences of any sort emanating from the government, but that non-governmental entities ought to be allowed to do what they want, regardless of whether I approve or not. Thus, the University of Michigan should not be allowed to take race into account at all, not even a little bit. Not as a quota, not as bonus points, not as a tie-breaker. Not for any reason, "diversity" or otherwise. Harvard can admit a 50% -- or 100% -- black class if it wants, regardless of SAT scores, GPA, or any other objective criteria, without running afoul of any laws. It doesn't need to camouflage this behind paeans to "diversity"; it can just say what it's really doing. And Columbia can say, if it wants, "We want to be lily white. No blacks allowed.")

Cobra:
But what you won't seriously consider in your posts, is that
if you also applied this mythological principle of "color-blindness" to
American Society (which is surely a fantasy, but purely hypothetical, that could NEVER be enforced) whites would theoretically lose THEIR advantages

Interesting assertion, because it so thoroughly and neatly and, as it happens, demonstrably reveals how wrong you are. As you know, not only do I “consider” the application of colorblindness to California via Prop. 209, I enthusiastically support it. As you should know, if for no other reason than that I’ve mentioned it here many times, one of the clearest effects of Prop. 209 in California is that it has reduced the proportion of the entering classes at the most selective universities there, Berkeley and UCLA, that is white. I strongly suspect that if the under the table cheating that is still occurring were eliminated, which it should be, the proportion of entering whites would probably be reduced even further.

Since supporters of racial preferences do so not out of some principle but because they believe such preferences benefit blacks, they assume that those of us who oppose them do so not because of principled objection to racial discrimination but because we wish to benefit whites. Since their position is based on interest, often self-interest, they assume that ours is too.

Finally, as David has said, the only legitimate purpose of civil rights laws is to end discrimination; it is not to redistribute “advantages.”

Ok - John you want to eliminate "Racial Discrimination" that is why you oppose Affirmative Action - What about Structural Sexism in the US against Women?
So what steps will you take to eliminate US Structural Racism against People of Color that has existed since the founding of the British colonies 1607 until now?
Secondly because the Ku Klux Klan has a history of hate crimes against Jews & People of Color will you openly reject any support from Ku Klux Klan members or sympathizers on the bans on Affirmative Action?
If you do not do anything on these points then you are not sincere in reducing Racial Discrimination that affects all of humanity only "Racial Discrimination" that affects White European-American males

David writes:

>>>"As a libertarian, I believe that there ought to be no race preferences of any sort emanating from the government, but that non-governmental entities ought to be allowed to do what they want, regardless of whether I approve or not."

This is the Dinesh D'Souza argument. The Grover Norquist argument is to shrink the size of government until it can be drowned in a bathtub, in other words--mass privatization.
The racial and ethnic LETHALITY emerging from the confluence of those two concepts, which by the way, are lynch-pins in today's conservative movement, is self-evident.

~~~Allow corporations and private entities that receive public funds to
be racist, then promote privatization as the answer for everything.~~~

With whites controlling the vast majority of wealth, land, access to capital, government agencies, and law enforcement, the march back to economic Jim Crow can be accomplished without one shot fired.
Of course, not every White American is complicit in this scheme, but I fear far too many know what's the REAL agenda of the far right monied intelligencia.

John writes:

>>>"Since supporters of racial preferences do so not out of some principle but because they believe such preferences benefit blacks, they assume that those of us who oppose them do so not because of principled objection to racial discrimination but because we wish to benefit whites. Since their position is based on interest, often self-interest, they assume that ours is too.

Finally, as David has said, the only legitimate purpose of civil rights laws is to end discrimination; it is not to redistribute “advantages.”"

We seem to have a slight language gap here. If you John, as a white man, have an "advantage" over me, a black man for something, for no other reason than skin color or ethnicity, how
can you claim that's NOT a "racial preference", or
discrimination--something you say you're vehemently against?

Is this a debate about semantics?

I will also note that you still have NOT renounced your self-admitted "white advantages" in American Society. Could that be one of the reasons people on my side might assume people on yours are acting in YOUR OWN self-interests?

--Cobra

This is the Dinesh D'Souza argument. The Grover Norquist argument is to shrink the size of government until it can be drowned in a bathtub, in other words--mass privatization.

The racial and ethnic LETHALITY emerging from the confluence of those two concepts, which by the way, are lynch-pins in today's conservative movement, is self-evident.

As for "self-evident," that's the case only in your distorted view of the world, in which even people who support racial preferences in favor of blacks secretly hate blacks.

~~~Allow corporations and private entities that receive public funds to be racist, then promote privatization as the answer for everything.~~~

With whites controlling the vast majority of wealth, land, access to capital, government agencies, and law enforcement, the march back to economic Jim Crow can be accomplished without one shot fired. I suppose it "can" be, yes. Just as the lack of European-style hate-speech laws in the U.S. "can" cause the U.S. to be awash in racial slurs. But the fact that this "can" happen would not justify censorship -- and in fact we see that it doesn't happen. In fact, there is strong public pressure against it; just ask Mr. Imus.

Your problem is that you have such a chip on your shoulder that you see imaginary racism everywhere. Did you pay attention to the Michigan affirmative action cases before the Supreme Court, or the campaign over Prop 2 in Michigan? Every major private institution, educational, military, religious, economic, and political -- including the state GOP -- came out in favor of affirmative action.

It's loony to think that all these powerful people who favor racial preferences in favor of blacks (which no law requires them to do) will suddenly abandon it and start discriminating against blacks if we "allow them to be racist." Indeed, the exact opposite is the case. Many of their racial preferences are currently illegal under the Civil Rights Act. We regularly see Roger Clegg et al. having to remind private schools that they may not offer black-only scholarships. Under my proposal, they would be allowed to do so.

We seem to have a slight language gap here. If you John, as a white man, have an "advantage" over me, a black man for something, for no other reason than skin color or ethnicity, how can you claim that's NOT a "racial preference", or discrimination--something you say you're vehemently against?

Is this a debate about semantics?

What you mean is that the government should look around, see that (e.g.) black people own homes at a lower rate than white people, and pass as many laws as necessary requiring construction companies or banks or realtors to do whatever it takes, including giving special treatment to blacks, to get the rates to be equal. Or better yet, the government should just start giving out money to black people so that they can buy houses at a higher rate than they currently do, until they catch up to whites.

What John means is that the government should pass (and enforce) a single law, saying that construction companies and banks and realtors must treat everyone equally without regard to race, in a color-blind manner -- and whatever happens with home ownership rates at that point is beyond the scope of government.

It's the government's job to make sure nobody is discriminated against, not to make sure that every race owns homes at the same rate. The former involves preferences, the latter merely advantages.