Comments

1. Lyonside wrote:

   >I think that these kids should have to spend a year volunteering for various community organizations in inner-city neighborhoods.

   I would go one step further, and say that these punks need to LIVE THERE. Let them experience first-hand substandard housing, and high rents and taxes (proportionate to the average income, and not that many people are subsidized for rent). Let them live with a grandmother raising her 3 grandbabies and a neice on a social security income, who bought that house with her husband 40 years ago but can’t afford to move out.

   Let them see the glories of public housing and the lack of social services and basic conveniences (yeah, the bus goes there - that’s about all that does). Let them breathe in the fumes of the nearest oil refinary or factory (Philly is notorious for this one).

   And let them try to find a sit-down restaurant that isn’t fast food and that’s open after 9 PM. Or a supermarket, for that matter, with the variety and sales seen in the wealthier parts of town.

   I’ve heard peers in my past say, “We mock because we love.” I think the truth is, “We mock because we CAN.”

   Posted 27 Jan 2007 at 9:46 am ¶

2. Lyonside wrote:

   OH! And while they’re “volunteering” in la ghetto, they have to also find a part-time job in the neighborhood to support themselves, because mommy and daddy’s money is no good while they’re in training. And they give up their car, if they have one. Ah, public transit (again, probably my Philly bias showing - the question isn’t what’s wrong with our SEPTA system, it’s what’s right?)

   Posted 27 Jan 2007 at 9:49 am ¶

3. ren wrote:

   Now Tom Tancredo is man who understands the suffering and oppression of segregation. Someone in New Hampshire, please teach Tom Tancredo how to think. It may keep him from embarrassing your fine state. Congress can “extol” all it wants, but colorblind is not possible, period. Colorblind applies to the law, not to people. Stay with me Tom, THAT’S the reason for holding colorblind up as a precedent, it protects us in a legal sense from losing our protections such as due process and keeping the government from placing racial classifications on our rights. Thus laws are colorblind… BECAUSE people can’t be colorblind. People will see skin color and judge you depending on their biases, the law however is colorblind in the sense that skin color is irrelevant. Understand now, great, now go run for president. If you think people can be colorblind, I’m curious to know what you’re wife looks like, cause you probably have it in your head that love is blind as well. Thank god this man has less of a chance than Kucinich.

   To follow Tancredo’s plea for a non-hypocritical congress, we should probably disband the white caucus consisting of 339 white males in the House and 87 in the Senate (I left out the white women since Tancredo probably sees them as minorities as well). Perhaps kick a few hundred people out for cronyism. And while we’re at kicking out divisive groups let’s throw out the republicans and the democrats as well. And for the sake of egalitarianism, we should just disband congress for operating as an oligarchy. The economic gap between our lawmakers and their constituents is practically feudal in comparison. I would love to say we expect smarter from our presidential hopefuls… but that would be stretching it.

   Posted 27 Jan 2007 at 10:23 am ¶

4. kim wrote:

   Tancredo:

   We’ve reached the tipping point,and I want to know, why are all the Blacks sitting together in the caucuses?

   Posted 27 Jan 2007 at 1:37 pm ¶

5. Mtevc wrote:

   Been following the affirmative action issues across the nation. Please, please, please explain Ward to me…can we take the man and do a Drop Squad on him?

   Ok…I know the movie sucked…but is there a way to stop him. Geez, the KKK isn’t this effective? All I can say is his mom must have smacked him around. Does anyone know Ward’s personal history!

   Posted 27 Jan 2007 at 7:28 pm ¶

6. ren wrote:

   Mtevc,

   Know any personal history? Uh, Ward is married to a white woman… but we learned a while back on the out-marriage debate that spouses don’t affect your racial leanings. What exactly do you have against the man? His intentions are for non-discriminatory practices. He sees affirmative action as a form of discrimination. And it is. Affirmative action was never meant to be law, just a solution to address the past discrimination of people of color… how long should one uphold that mantle of victimhood?

   Posted 28 Jan 2007 at 11:34 am ¶

7. James wrote:

   Reposted from my comment on Tara Henley’s Northern Touch:

   “Maybe then they would have an inkling why their “ghetto” parties are so absurdly offensive. Poverty is no joke, dummies.” - Tara Henley

   Uhm … No. I’m sorry, but those ignorant college students are not mocking poverty. They mock a racialized group of American citizens - specifically African Americans. Ms. Henley, this can’t be deconstructed into another instance where a White person realizes a group of Whites have been racially insensitive and then ignores the inherent racism of those White people’s actions to focus on the classist elements therein.

   We endured enough of that during Hurricane Katrina and it’s aftermath.

   Those students were utterly racist in their jovial partying, and no “ghetto immersion” policies will assist such deeply ingrained hatred of Black American citizens. Period.

   Ms. Henley, my melanin does not wash off, so anyone willing to comment on those who lampoon my melanin need to deal with its permanent status. Let’s not obscure the nature of these children’s prejudice by ignoring racism to discuss class.

   Posted 28 Jan 2007 at 2:58 pm ¶

8. mtevc wrote:

   Ren, Excuse me. Affirmative action isn’t a mantle of victimhood at colleges and universities. It’s a useful way to diversify the school’s student body, and it is a needed tool to address the ramifications of racism in this country. Besides, preferences remain at all universities and colleges…for a variety of things…and I tell you this after being involving in interviewing as an alum (and listening to others who have done the same)…from letting in the filthy rich (and not necessarily best student) to legacies or athletes. I’ve known the knuckleheaded legacies. Affirmative action is a leveling of the playing field. You could argue that “victimhood” bit if you could prove that racism (the legacy of slavery) didn’t still have an impact in our society. If you believe there isn’t racism (yes, things are much better), then we simply can’t talk about it all, as you are deluding yourself. I don’t really care if Ward is married to a white person. I have nothing against interracial relationships. I was more interested in his formative years, and why he is so rabid in his efforts. It speaks to me of someone who has a chip on his shoulder…to make a life of this.

   Posted 28 Jan 2007 at 6:43 pm ¶

9. mtevc wrote:

   Forgot to say…does anyone really value what Ward has to say…considering he’s a right wing prop. If Jesse Jackson’s on one side with his hand out, Ward’s collecting on the other.

   Posted 28 Jan 2007 at 6:48 pm ¶

10. Kyla wrote:

    “Affirmative action was never meant to be law, just a solution to address the past discrimination of people of color… how long should one uphold that mantle of victimhood?”

    Until a person’s race no longer has a negative effect on their access to education, employment, etc. It’s not just to address past discrimination, it’s to address present discrimination, too.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 2:50 am ¶

11. Meg wrote:

    mtevc, or anyone really: can you explain to a non-american (me) what actual benefit affirmative action gives an applicant - i mean in terms of does it bump your GPA up a whole grade or if it’s between two equal students they look to diversify? e.g. for me uni admittance is a case of a score from 0-100 that you have based on high school. If you want to do a popular course you need a higher score (99.9 for law or medicine). However, a minimum standard for medicine might be 90 so theoretically anyone over 90 could do well but you need 99.9 because there’s a limited number of spots available. Would affirmative action admit only those minority students who scored over 90 (but maybe less than the cut-off) or would they be admitting someone who got less than the minimum standard? This may be too simplistic to apply to american universities but i hear about affirmative action without really understanding the mechanics of applications.

    I’d be inclined to think if you admit students who are not up to a minimum standard just because of the colour of their skin then you’d be setting them up for failure and consequently excusing governments from having to improve the schools that have failed them in the 1st instance. Potential is one thing but if you start out behind and there’s little support in place then does it end up harming more than it helps? I don’t care about the “reverse racism” (my most hated term) aspect of it but it seems arguing over affirmative action narrows the education focus and doesn’t encapsulate the bigger picture.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 3:24 am ¶

12. ren wrote:

    Kyla,

    I disagree and stick with my original comment.

    You wrote:

    “It’s not just to address past discrimination, it’s to address present discrimination, too.”

    Affirmative Action has to be addressed as applying to discriminatory attitudes that have their basis in a historical context. If you don’t word it this way, you would have to prove how you are NOT discriminating against Whites based on their race. If Affirmative Action addresses present discrimination, you’d have to include them too.

    “Until a person’s race no longer has a negative effect on their access to education, employment, etc.”

    Good luck. You’ll be right up there with the people who don’t want fatness, ugliness, and stupidity to have an negative effect on anything they do. Being a fat, stupid, ugly person myself, I await your utopia with bated breath.

    Mtevc,

    I was being a smartass about his interracial marriage. It was a poorly coy attempt at referencing an earlier issue that everybody holds high opinion of but nobody really wants to debate. Anywho — what makes you think he’s flawed in any way? You suggest he wasn’t brought up “correctly” in his formative years… why? Because he doesn’t take the stances that unequivocally benefit his racial group?

    I’m not really sold on the whole diversify element of affirmative action. Yes the Supreme Court ruled that a diverse student body could be conducive to one’s education… as a “compelling argument” for affirmative action. But I find that, while noble, difficult to believe. Since most private institutions hold minority enrollment for each class at around 10% (amazingly without using an illegal racial quota system). How exactly that constitutes as “critical mass” in terms of providing a diverse environment… you got me. That’s more creating a small state operating within a state.

    Yes I realize preferences, many of which are unfair, exist at universities and colleges. I just don’t care for your rational. You dislike the preference they give to legacies and athletes yet you don’t advocate for the ending of such policies, you want to exploit that by saying if these policies function uselessly and unfairly then we should be able to apply our own unfair policy concerning racial preferences. You’re “leveling of the playing field” is a supposed fairness utilized by unfair means.

    “You could argue that “victimhood” bit if you could prove that racism (the legacy of slavery) didn’t still have an impact in our society. If you believe there isn’t racism (yes, things are much better), then we simply can’t talk about it all, as you are deluding yourself.”

    Well, watch me delude myself and still talk about it. What I don’t get… you want me to issue proof that they present themselves as victims and yet at the same time tell me that we need affirmative action because we are victims of racism… ok. I’ll get back to you on that one. An issue that should be addressed is suggesting that affirmative action deals with the issue of racism. Not directly and to a degree not at all. Affirmative action is an issue of discrimination. To say it deals specifically with racism merely conflates the issue. Affirmative action applied to white women, it applied to the disabled, it applied to people of different ethnicities, and it applied to race. It in no way combats racism, racism belies a strong unyielding conviction to one’s race that supports the hatred of another race. Having a quota that requires hiring 10 black persons doesn’t make white people go, hey I like black people, skin color means nothing! If anything, the issue of racial quotas causes conflict and suspicion. Nothing about affirmative action makes anyone question their core convictions about race.

    Affirmative action deals with discrimination. Its core issue is with qualifications and the legal sanctioning of discrimination, the very issue that affirmative action was meant to address. Do you have proof that the admissions of the University of California system or University of Michigan by rejecting affirmative action, is doing so out of racial hatred? No, because it’s not viewed as a racial issue, it’s a constitutional one. That’s why if you read the cases of affirmative action concerning the Supreme Court and their decision making, the issue of “racism” doesn’t factor. This is a constitutional issue.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 9:01 am ¶

13. Lyonside wrote:

    Meg:

    I’m deliberately staying out of this debate, but I want to address one part of your question:

    the way affirmative action policies both for school and hiring is SUPPOSED to work is that ALL applicants are equally qualified. If there is a need for more diversity with whatever organization, then preference MAY be given to the minority candidate (or whatever the criteria is - it’s not just racial category - in my town, a city employee who is a military veteran gets a 5 point boost in a civil servant exam. That doesn’t meant they get the job, but if they’re taking the top 5 candidates for another round of interviews, and they already score high, then they have an in - if they score low, 5 points is not enough to get them into the “final 5″).

    Affirmative action policy is also not supposed to be a quota - i.e. it is not supposed to be X of this group, Y of another.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 9:12 am ¶

14. Mtevc wrote:

    Ren, No, it’s not creating a small state within a state, since the population of most minorities in the overall society probably is lower than the actual numbers they could admit to the college. Then, it’s simply more reflective of society in general.

    In reference to Meg, this isn’t about reverse racism or letting people in who can’t do the work at all. Unfortunately, most admissions folks are not all that savvy in how they recruit. They always go the usual places, for the most part. I am not talking about letting people in who aren’t qualified at all. But, there are ranges of “so-called qualification” as far as SAT scores, grades in high school, etc. There are tons of kids let into universities and colleges each year who get a pass, who fall much below that standard, simply because of connections, money, or legacy status. No one ever questions how these folks will succeed at the university? I am not arguing for letting in people who can’t succeed. That would be foolish.

    Back to Ren, if the incorrect application of affirmative action benefited those who didn’t really need it, then maybe that speaks to the problem with society in general…that there was some urge to screw with the whole process. The U of Cali and Michigan debate is not viewed as a racial issue simply because most people in support of how things turned out really don’t believe racism exists. If you get them to admit it, I would be surprised. If affirmative action and other redresses cause suspicion on the part of whites, I contend the suspicion was already there. It is difficult to change what is in the hearts of men/women, and this is not to say all white people are racist, or that black people can’t be racist. But there needs to be a way to make proper redress to some degree, that removes personal prejudices from the mix. Affirmative action is by no means perfect. But the situation that we are addressing is worse. If everyone keeps arguing about how the playing field is not level when we apply affirmative action, then they need to think about the preferences that skin color give.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 11:01 am ¶

15. Just Wondering wrote:

    All this talk about the lack of minority admissions to U.S. universities misses a couple of very key points:

    1) Most schools — public and private — are falling all over themselves trying to find and recruit young black and Latino students, and have been for more than two decades. The idea that these universities are actively seeking to keep minority students out — as many people seem to suggest — is simply false. Minority students with the grades and scores have plenty of opportunity in today’s race for diversity.

    2) Many capable black students choose historically black colleges/universities over public/private schools. If these students were to choose State U, obviously it would impact the diversity percentages we read so much about.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 12:12 pm ¶

16. ren wrote:

    Mtevc,

    I wasn’t really concerned whether the student body was demographically representational. My issue was the idea that the Supreme Court upholds this belief that diversity contributes to the betterment of the student body. Being reflective of the society in no way apples to how they integrate themselves into a closer-knit student body that is overwhelmingly white. An issue I faced as an undergrad, when there is only 10% minority in a sea of White and most assume it was through affirmative action, this does not speak well of inclusiveness and thus stunts the awe and learning that supposedly stems from a diverse student body.

    Who exactly was benefited by affirmative action that didn’t really need it? Not sure where that question stems from? But I am curious what you think the “correct” application of affirmative action would consist of and what prompted this conspiracy theory?

    “The U of Cali and Michigan debate is not viewed as a racial issue simply because most people in support of how things turned out really don’t believe racism exists.”

    That’s utter assertion there. Because they don’t frame the issue as a race issue we can safely assume they don’t believe racism exists? Considering in both accounts affirmative action was UPHELD by the Supreme Court, I don’t see that being the case. Sorry if that wasn’t clear, I wasn’t suggesting that these schools rejected affirmative action… they had to. The safest place in the world for minorities is within academia. The fact is that the California system and University of Michigan dropped affirmative action was due to proposals voted on by the people of the state, not the administration/faculty of the school. In the landmark cases of affirmative action that involved the Supreme Court concerning these two universities, they defended and won the right to continue affirmative action.

    California’s prop.209 was voted into law by 54% of the voters. I don’t know how many voted but considering that California is one of the few states where minorities are a majority over whites, this loss doesn’t bode well for affirmative action. Was there a huge drop-off in Blacks admitted to Berkeley and UCLA, yes. Did that mean they were denied an education, no. Berkeley is a prestigious school and admittance should be the product of qualification, the fact that Black admission dropped at Berkeley and UCLA caused a rise in enrollment at the other University of California branch campuses. And considering that prop.209 was only validated for state-run schools, all the private universities and colleges in CA could tell Ward to shove it. So perhaps I don’t understand your concern. Blacks and Hispanics are certainly capable of heading to college without affirmative action, perhaps they won’t be given a free entry into an elite institution like Berkley, but they aren’t denied an education.

    You want affirmative action to remove the issue of prejudice, but I’m not sure where prejudice is visited upon in the academic admissions process. An individual with a higher GPA and higher test scores have a greater chance of admission than someone that does not. What is the personal prejudice based on race in that situation?

    I think we ARE thinking about the preferences that skin color give. Used to be 20 points extra at University of Michigan Law school, in the top ten best and most competitive law schools. Oh I agree, affirmative action is far from being perfect. It paradoxically contributes to what it tries valiantly to abolish. And the best defense people can give is that academic policies that unfairly help white students proves that unfair race policies should be equally accepted?

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 12:59 pm ¶

17. Mtevc wrote:

    I’m sorry your experience at college was so negative. But that’s not the case for all of us. I had a great time at college, socially and academically. I had and still have friends from college of all races. Close family friends. Was your difficulty in an ability to deal in this “sea of white?” I had no problem. And, guess what, black, Asian, and Hispanics need to operate in this sea of white in the professional world. So, what’s your point? Additionally, if you want to argue this “framing” thing, I can bring you back to the same sort of “framing” arguments used for states rights, the reason for the Civil War, etc. Don’t kid yourself. If you think that admissions staff are color blind, you are mistaken. I am not deluding myself to think affirmative action can remove prejudice. I don’t think it can. But I think it can help to remove the blinders caused by prejudice in certain circumstances. As far as the idea that a diverse student body aids the student body as a whole, I would argue beyond that. A diverse student body can eventually help the legal system, the media profession, the medical community, etc, as we move a more diverse professional population into roles that they didn’t hold before. Just take a look at the knuckleheads at the law schools holding “Malt liquor parties” on MLK day. I doubt you would want them as your future lawyer.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 2:59 pm ¶

18. ren wrote:

    Never said my experience in college was negative nor difficult (to the contrary), merely questioned how allotting 10% minorities and 90% Whites was “diversifying”. If anything such a disproportionate ratio suggested to White students that we were there due to affirmative action. A lot of the minorities were, a quarter of them in my graduating class dropped out or failed out by the second semester. I would pose your “inability to deal in a sea of white” question to them. I wasn’t that bothered. I won’t make any comment as to what race they consisted of, but I will say it was a waste of a free $120,000 education. Thus my personal experience and why I take issue with using affirmative action because you think “potential” is a qualification (perhaps a shady one). I’ll certainly cop to the working in a white world considering that wasn’t even in question. I’m glad you had a swell time at college. I guess my point was if you had no problem they had no reason to have a problem — see you’ve proved it.

    I’d love to hear your “framing” arguments since this is a issue you seem to easily be capable of parrying (if you so desired). I’d be more impressed if you’d argue the “framing” issue with affirmative action and stay on topic. But if you want to take me through a course in history, we can see if we’ve both read the same graduate history books.

    I’m curious why you think Admission Staff are looking to deny people of color? I make no claim that they have zero prejudices, but I don’t see how you make the connection that being human and having prejudices means intellectual dishonesty in performing one’s job, the very condition of which is to ignore race, sex, and religious factors that could constitute a bias. You suggest they would and they do. Do you have anything that proves this apart from stating I’m mistaken and horribly wrong about it? I admit, I’m naïve and willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    In Grutter v. Bollinger, Barbara Grutter (white female) was making the case that SHE was being discriminated by admissions. But that required proof that without special minority admissions, she would have been “rightfully” admitted to Michigan Law School. Couldn’t prove it and lost, affirmative action won out. In fact the only cases where affirmative action have lost were when the plaintiff was making the case that the system (point system/racial quota) used in determining admissions was itself inherently discriminatory. They didn’t make it into a case of why they couldn’t get in. Thus they won their cases and those methods of affirmative action were ruled illegal (prior to state votes that made all of affirmative action illegal). So if you’d somehow proved prejudice of admission staff I’d love to know about it.

    Considering you haven’t even argued “for it” I’ll cheerfully accept your argument beyond the argument you hadn’t given. The fraternity you make among your peers will for the most part help you assuming they can stay enrolled. Someone making due with a high school education won’t have the kinds of opportunities open up to him that having connections with college professionals and an alumni system would. That’s the type of support that will help people transition into becoming a professional. So it’s not really a question of minorities comfortably finding a place in schools that are overwhelmingly white… the issue is they just need to be there and make connections.

    Ah, something that we agree on. They were indeed knuckleheads. And no, I wouldn’t want them as my future lawyer, I’d most likely represent myself thanks.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 7:05 pm ¶

19. Meg wrote:

    Thanks lyonside you cleared it up for me a bit

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 7:14 pm ¶

20. Mtevc wrote:

    You’re reading too much into what I say. I never said “potential” was all that someone needed. Let’s agree to disagree, politely. I wasn’t a recipient of a free education, nor did I face the sting of white folks believing I didn’t deserve to be there. I got into debt, worked to be there, and went on to grad school. The reasons for black students dropping out are many, and lack of prep isn’t the only concern. But there are others who succeed. I also believe that if you live your life with the thought of what others think of you, then you are doomed. I can’t worry about the spectre of what white people are thinking. I doubt you are naive, though I question your need to even argue this so fervently with me—someone you don’t know. Yours is a perfect world, and I wish it were so. And, yes, I do think you are naive. People make assumptions and play into their patterns all the time. They seek out sameness. Some of it is obvious, but much is not. I do sense venom in your tone however, and I am merely arguing my point and hoping we can be civil. If not, let’s end this. Glad you can represent yourself, but not everyone can.

    Posted 29 Jan 2007 at 10:06 pm ¶

21. ren wrote:

    Yes, let’s end this. Considering you probably wanted to end this much earlier. I wasn’t insinuating that your life mirrored my experiences, however as I was giving my experience as an example, you jumped on it to tell me how that never happened to you. Fine, it never happened to you. Is that supposed to discredit my experience? I applaud you for your hard work, a true example of not needing affirmative action perhaps.

    “Reasons are many”, “in certain circumstances”, “problem with society… Why not expound on the details of what these phrases pertain to? They reside in an ambiguity that keeps them safe from criticism.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought I was being quite civil. Every question you asked me, I attempted to answer with clarity. I wasn’t in any way trying to deceive you or dismiss anything. But practically every question I put forth, every issue I wanted clarified was summarily ignored. The first question I posed about Ward after you associated him with the KKK wasn’t even discussed six posts back. Yet I’m the one lost in my own world playing into my own patterns, engrossed in the safety of sameness? This has become quite common, I have to disagree, politely.

    I don’t really need to form a personal relationship in order to discuss an issue with somebody. Frankly, I don’t care what beliefs you hold… I’m more interested in the rational for your beliefs. You spoke of following the issue of affirmative action and since I sit on the fence with this issue I was curious what you had to share. I had the pleasure to learn wondrous things like how naive I am, how I delude myself, and how mistaken I am. I don’t mind being wrong, just base it on something other than your opinion. Since I don’t recall telling you how misguided you are (at least not without a rationale) I find it strange you being the one to speak to me of civility. So perhaps that tone in my voice is venom, perhaps it’s disgust.

    I just don’t find the arguments that defend affirmative action as being very compelling, and it seems with the passing of all these propositions that neither does anyone else. Now you can blame that on their idiocy, or entrenched racism, their prejudices, or flip it so that it’s people not being able to see racism… whatever. The fact of the matter is you NEED these common folk, misguided like me or not, to understand the issue because they decide the fate of affirmative action. It’s either making the strong points to support your stance or finding what reasons you can use to blame them.

    I think everyone is entitled to represent themselves in a civil case, the caveat being you have to be sure you know what you’re talking about. As they say in the legal biz, the man that represents himself in court has a fool for a client and a fool for a lawyer.

    Posted 30 Jan 2007 at 12:12 am ¶

22. Mtevc wrote:

    At some point, we will need to pleasantly agree to disagree. Yes, I do wonder about those who are so fervent in their distaste for affirmative action, when there are so many other more important legal battles out there in need of more attention and money invested into it. At the heart of it, ideology (opinion) does form what one thinks on this issue—in many ways. If you believe the playing field isn’t level, then affirmative action makes sense, and though it isn’t a perfect remedy, it is seen as a redress—redress for racism/Jim Crow/lack of voting rights, etc. If, however, at the heart of all of this is the fact that things are fine, then you could argue the reverse discrimination bit. Is that your thought?

    I used personal experience merely to explain that I didn’t have any deep-seated anger or motivation. My personal success is not necessarily a case against affirmative action, either. My comments on Ward relate back to the fact that a chunk of one’s life spent on fighting affirmative action is odd—even if you don’t support it. I am not won over by Ward’s argument that he is fighting for a colorblind society. Yes, I do question his motives and motivations and funding. I have that right. (I believe this addresses your question to me about Ward, but I can’t say that I was following your note line by line. Geez!) I have a life, a job…

    The voters may be misguided, and your argument that the population is majority minority in California (somehow making this vote more meaningful) is not a compelling argument to me—considering how many of those individuals aren’t able to vote (legally) or aren’t registered to vote or simply don’t vote. (Yes, it is sad that more Black Americans don’t vote, but they certainly aren’t the overwhelming majority of the minority in California.) Additionally, the morality and the humanity of their vote could be debated. I am sure we can still travel to certain parts of this country where we could get a majority of the white residents to vote in support of sending Black folks back to Africa. (I have, unfortunately, traveled through some of those parts of the country, in addition to much more interesting parts. But those sentiments and the legacy of racism were the reasons that JFK and Johnson after him, and Nixon as well, initially instituted a variety of affirmative action initiatives in hiring, contracting, etc.)

    The Supreme Court in 2003, which you discount (but unless I am mistaken—it’s the highest court in the land), ruled in support of the constitutionality of the U of MI law school’s process that considered race, in addition to a variety of other factors…noting that they placed value on the diversity of a campus, as long as the application process looks at the candidate in a more complete way…that race could be one of many factors. I guess your “opinion” is that they are wrong. Your capping comment was unnecessary. I shared some of my thoughts and some of my background to indicate nothing more than my openness in this conversation. It’s just very interesting to see how people come to form their opinion on this issue. I’ve also seen discussions where people purport to be this or that, and they have an agenda to fulfill. I did sense your urgency and your passion on this, and your words show it. I was trying to figure out why you have those feelings.

    Posted 31 Jan 2007 at 3:51 pm ¶

23. ren wrote:

    To answer your question, nope, the world isn’t fine. It’s disgustingly unfair and yet I don’t see how affirmative action works as a “redress” as you so cautiously refer to it. I find it odd that affirmative action functions as a redress for racism (again, I and white women would say discrimination but I’ll follow your cue) yet works fundamentally to harm Asian Americans. In the case of Jian Li and Princeton or in the first landmark case of affirmative action, University of California v. Bakke where it was revealed that Asian Americans were held at a disadvantage along with Whites like Bakke. I don’t recall Asian Americans owning slaves, enacting Jim Crow laws, etc… so I guess I wouldn’t be arguing reverse discrimination, just discrimination period. But this situation seems fine to you. Is that your thought?

    Fine, I accept your personal experience with no strings attached. The issue I was bringing up with in my personal experience, which was automatically deemed negative, was really a concern that without affirmative action for state schools (which tend to be more diverse than private schools) it will be the private schools that don’t have to comply to Ward’s propositions that will be recruiting from diverse populations. However many could face problems being the minority in heavily majority white private universities as the fellow students of my class, coming mainly from the five boroughs, were unused to being a minority to that degree. If I can assume you come from a predominately black urban area, you prove some can handle it… some however can not. If affirmative action continues to be struck down and state/public schools are less welcoming, this is an issue that many disadvantaged minorities from the urban areas have to consider.

    Considering that I have no life, I will accept your skepticism concerning the California vote. Had I been on the receiving end of it, I’d lodge the same complaints. This is sadly ambiguous without the actual data of who and what race voted for or against. Despite their inability to vote as you point out, illegal immigrants seemed fully capable of utilizing affirmative action and strangely enough in-state tuition rates especially in California, possibly to the detriment of blacks (and everyone else for that matter). Granted we’re swerving toward an immigration debate and I don’t want to move to that. I’ll stick with my original statement about strengthening your stance or making excuses, and you seem convinced still that the arguments that defend affirmative action are strong, it’s the people that are incapable and weak. I guess I’m not as convinced of that.

    I’m sure you could find people that want Blacks sent back to Africa. You can also find people that want everyone but the white race to perish in fire. The fact that you can find these individuals doesn’t suggest to me that Ward’s prop. Was passed in places like California and Washington State because the citizenry has the likelihood of holding these ideological views. I cannot say for sure, but one can probably make a clear distinction (at least I have) of the overall sentiments of people living in Washington State vs. people living in Mississippi. (no offense to Mississippi)

    Wait, I discounted the Supreme Court case of Grutter v. Bollinger 2003? If you’re going to make that claim you’d point out where I supposedly did this? In that case they ruled against Grutter i.e. upheld affirmative action, like I stated. At the same time the Supreme Court ruled on the issue of Gratz v. Bollinger 2003, in favor of Gratz and ruled against the University of Michigan’s admission process. Gratz v. Bollinger said that the point system utilized by University of Michigan was unconstitutional, thus the process by which they admitted students of color was unfair. The process of point system and racial quotas were both struck down by the Supreme Court.

    Yes it is interesting to see how people come to form their opinions. I hope that agenda comment wasn’t directed at me, since what agenda might I have? If I were anti-affirmative action there isn’t much I really need to be doing, to see that agenda fulfilled apart from sitting back quietly and snickering to myself.

    Posted 31 Jan 2007 at 8:05 pm ¶

24. Mtevc wrote:

    This idea of fearful black folks on campus, adrift in a sea of white, is overdone. Some will fail, and some will suceed. At the private university I attended, the black students who graduated in my class came from a variety of backgrounds (suburban, urban). Most of these people ended up being fine with the idea of a majority white campus. I happened to come from a more integrated area, and not a typical urban setting. So, I am not quite sure why you assumed that? But as most of the country is segregated, and resegregating, black people will constantly have to deal with this issue in seeking employment, going to college, etc. So, should we opt out of life, opportunity? Are you proposing segregation? Basically, you’re making it sound as if black people should remain at state schools, or run for cover anytime a private university is suggested, simply because there isn’t a large number of us there. Thanks for your ending comment, as you clearly revealed yourself more than in all of your paragraphs.

    When you say: “The issue I was bringing up with in my personal experience, which was automatically deemed negative…” Deemed negative by what person? You? Others? Be clear.

    You also note: “…it will be the private schools that don’t have to comply to Ward’s propositions that will be recruiting from diverse populations. However many could face problems being the minority in heavily majority white private universities as the fellow students of my class, coming mainly from the five boroughs, were unused to being a minority to that degree….If affirmative action continues to be struck down and state/public schools are less welcoming, this is an issue that many disadvantaged minorities from the urban areas have to consider.” I guess you would argue the concern for the first black students integrating Little Rock Central High. Come on. The concern seems a bit much.

    The story of the Gratz young woman is bizarre. That anyone could hinge her whole academic life on applying to one place is ridiculous. The Bakke case is a complex one, as it was both anti-quota (not necessarily affirmative action, per se, in application) and also in the sense that, in writing, one of the justices affirmed the place for a diverse student body and consideration of race in some cases—there is a “compelling interest” for race as one of a variety of factors. Somehow I don’t buy the argument that these two women who brought their suits would automatically find slots where they want to be anyway, considering the strong competition among white applicants (accepted and rejected). The issue of pressing their own case on the basis of reverse discrimination is sour grapes at best, and the trial lawyers and folks on the anti-affirmative action side were out with the hounds looking for the rejects to get a suit going. The passion and attention and money that this issue garners is worrisome, and best spent on a more needed matter. The issue of Asian-Americans is more an issue of universities (a number in California) micromanaging the numbers of folks in their student body (white vs. Asian), and realizing that Asians were becoming a large percentage of students on campus and of those applying. This isn’t an issue of affirmative action. (And I am often troubled by the “playing minorities against one another” thing.) Once again, it was more a fear by white admissions staff and university officials that balked at the growing number of Asian-Americans applying and coming to their campus. Affirmative action opponents jump on this quite often, but the competition is not among Asian-American applicants and Black applicants, if affirmative action is applied. It would be Asian bopping whites out of spots…and I think there is some sort of a reverse quota to make sure Asians don’t outnumber whites. Admissions officials can argue all sorts of things to qualify students for a spot, regarding their past experiences, sport participation, hobbies, “lack of well-roundedness,” etc. It is a very opinionated process. It seems Asian-Americans are being held to a standard above whites, and this really isn’t about black vs. Asian…though the lawyers made sure to extend the language in the MI case to Asian-Americans thru class action even though they were representing white plaintiffs. More legal manuevering than anything. Jian Li would have made a more moral and stronger case (for future Asian and Asian-American applicants) if he had argued that he was held to a standard above that of whites in general. Besides, he argued against legacy status and athletes, and I don’t see anti-affirmative action people having a field day on legacies. Li was rejected from some pretty prestigious universities—universities with declining minority populations (other than Asian) and very few minority applicants (other than Asian). This is an issue that is not an Asian vs. Black issue.

    Posted 01 Feb 2007 at 2:23 pm ¶

Post a Comment