|
|
This discussion is closed. This is a transcript.
The price of affirmative action?Author: Colloquy ModeratorDate: 11-05-04 13:29 Affirmative action hurts black law students more than it helps them, by bumping applicants up into law schools where they are more likely to earn poor grades, drop out, and fail their states' bar exams, according to a study by a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. A report on the study, to be published this month in the Stanford Law Review, has sparked a contentious debate. Is the article's thesis plausible? Does it suggest that the U.S. Supreme Court reached the wrong conclusion last year in upholding the University of Michigan law school's use of affirmative action in admissions? Is the failure of some students a justifiable price to pay for the broader benefits of affirmative action? Read more... Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Mark Flowers, Academic Adviser Date: 11-08-04 10:18 It can be very easy to tie a black students failure to his or her being an affirmative action admit. The general feeling is that those students are weaker than other students. As it is very similarly done in universities around the country who admit undergraduate students through some "program", their admittance almost guarantees that some percentage of these students will at some point fail or transfer out of most institutions. This is mainly because universities misuse these programs and admit poor performing students and in some cases, universities use these programs to bolster their recruitment numbers while worrying about retention later. Some schools even enjoy the poor retention rates as it could mark their institution as being "strongly competitive". Universities admit a poor performing student claiming affirmative action so that better qualified students can't grieve their rejections. All this so that institutions can say they have minority students. For these reasons, Richard H. Sander's report is baseless and seems to be made from him small faculty office off the northern side of his campus. The validity of this report, lies within the reliable data which shows if the students who fail or transfer, were greatly successful students during their academic career or, because of university support, were they someone who became successful. Any argument that affirmative action is a failure, rather than a misused admittance system, is a direct attack on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Michigan case. The broader benefits of affirmative action must be met with broader support from the government. Perhaps another creation within the Federal TRIO program to aid and support graduate level students who enter into fields other than engineering would be helpful. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Roger Clegg, Ctr for Equal Opp Date: 11-08-04 12:37 There is growing empirical support for Professor Sander's thesis that racial preferences in admissions end up hurting their supposed beneficiaries. One example is the book "Increasing Faculty Diversity," by Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber (Harvard Univesity Press, 2003), which concluded that preferences resulted in lower grades which, in turn, resulted in fewer African Americans in academia. The counterarguments in favor of preferences have always hinged on the argument that so many doors are supposedly opened when you have gone to a more prestigious school. But there is also empirical data suggesting that going to a more presitigious school generally doesn't result in higher earnings if you control for the students' respective qualifications. See Stacy Berg Dale & Alan B. Krueger, "Estimating Payoff to Attending a More Selecive College: An Application of Selection on Observable and Unobservables," 117 Q.J. Econ. 1491 (Nov. 2002). But the empirical data aside, aren't Professor Sander's findings exactly what one would expect? At an institution where 90 percent of the students are at level X, the teachers will aim their presentations at that level, the classroom discussions will be at that level, and the conversations among students will be at that level, too. And that level is not the level at which you, the "beneficiary" of the racial preference, are. When it comes time to take your exams, then, you will not do as well. You will be handicapped not only because everyone else had better academic qualifications to begin with, but also because they have had the benefit of instruction tailored to their level and you have not. And so you will get worse grades, you will fall further behind, you will get discouraged, and you will be less likely to graduate. Even if you do graduate, you will have fewer opportunities. Employers and graduate and professional schools will be put off by your grades. You will have learned less, and your self-confidence will have been pummeled. (Not to mention the fact that the presence of preferences means that everyone who sees your skin color will assume that you are less qualified, even if you are not.) Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Bill Kidder, Equal Justice Soc Date: 11-08-04 20:10 I invite readers to review the draft critique of professor Sander's study that I coauthored with David Chambers, Tim Clydesdale, and Richard Lempert (http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/research.html) and judge for yourself whether Sander's estimates and assumptions are sound. Here are four quick observations about Sander's study, and a couple about Mr. Clegg's commentary: (1) Sander seriously underestimates the prospects of resegregation in law schools. He claims that ending affirmative action tomorrow would curtail African American enrollments to law school nationwide by only 14%. Yet, using his "grid model" and the latest national data (2003), we found that ending affirmative action would slash African American enrollments by at least one-quarter. In fact, a decline of about 40%-45% is more realistic because applications and yield rates would almost certainly decline. (2) Ending affirmative action would severely restrict access to elite law schools, which disproportionately function as gateways to leadership positions in law, politics and other policymaking arenas. Most of the African Americans now serving as federal judges and as law professors, as well as those in Congress who possess law degrees, attended a handful of elite law schools. The Supreme Court got it right in Grutter when it declared that the "it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity." (3) A linchpin of Sander's estimates is his assertion that there is a "powerful" association between LSATs and undergraduate grade-point averages, and how law students perform on the bar exam. However, within the LSAC Bar Passage database, the core of Sander's study, LSAT scores and undergraduate grades combined only explain 9% of the variance in bar exam pass/fail rates. (Wightman, 72 N.Y.U. Law Rev. 1, 39 (1997)). (4) Sander's projections are based on the demonstrably false assumption that ending affirmative action would eliminate all Black-White LSAT/GPA disparities within (but not between) law schools. Yet, under virtually all "race neutral" admission programs, disparities in entering test scores and grades will inevitably remain, given the distribution of scores within the applicant pool. Thus, Sander's estimates about improved grades and bar performance without affirmative action are necessarily too optimistic. Regarding Mr. Clegg's comment that there is no earnings advantage to attending an elite university, the Dale and Krueger study he cites runs counter to a larger body of scholarship reaching the opposite conclusion (e.g., Berhrman et al. 1996, Bowen & Bok 1998, Monks 2000) as well as studies of college graduation rates which refute the "mismatch" hypothesis (e.g., Alon & Tienda 2004, Kane 1998, Bowen & Bok 1998). Moreover, if conservative opponents of affirmative action truly believed that attending prestigious universities was irrelevant to future opportunities, why did the Center for Individual Rights sue top-tier law schools at the University of Texas, the University of Michigan, and the University of Washington, rather than less selective institutions? Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Dr. Paul A. Bryant, Asst. VP Date: 11-09-04 07:52 It is no secret that significant performance gaps exist in higher education between under-represented populations and those of the majority. The questions we should concern ourselves with are why this is happening and how we can reverse this trend. It is a ridiculous assertion to suggest that an affirmative action policy is the cause. However, this is always a very hot topic which may explain why articles implying the negative affects of affirmative action receive front page attention while the rebuttals do not. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Marcy Tanter, Tarleton State U Date: 11-09-04 09:20 This discussion is beginning on a very pessimistic note. Not ALL black students are underprepared for the colleges they attend, just as not all white students are prepared (a study that came out recently showed that only 22% of all college freshman are prepared for college). As I see it, the problem isn't with affirmative action, it's with universities and colleges that are willing to have all kinds of social and cultural events for students of color but they don't provide academic support for them. Black students are less likely, in my experience, to ask for help than white students but the black students are the ones we often need to reach out to, to make them see that help is available and can make a difference. If we admit students who are just not able to do the work, we have no one to blame but ourselves; affirmative action should not mean doing that, it should mean making sure that students of color who DO have the skills get a fair shot at getting into a university. If we're going to accept students who are going to underperform, it's our job to help them once they're admitted. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Tim Harris, Eastern KY Uni. Date: 11-09-04 10:32 Hello all, I agree with Mr. Clegg on many points. First, affirmative action hurts more than it helps. In 1964, the Congress of the United States passed, and the President signed, a law that states emphatically that no person shall be discriminated against on the basis of color! Yet, when any group (white, black, American Indian, or green...if there were such a group) receives special treatment I have yet to hear a single argument that reconciliates the 1964 act with contemporary Affirmative Action programs. When applying to law school, medical school, graduate school, or a job, a person should be evaluated upon their ability to do the job and succeed. No one is holding African Americans back. I think Bill Cosby spoke the truth recently when he said that African American youth must stop playing "the victim." In my life as a professor in higher education, I can say that rascism flows both ways. Yes, there are whites who dislike other races. However, there are many, many African Americans who are just as rascist, if not more rascist, than whites. My point: Rascism is wrong and it doesn't matter whether you're a Black American or white American. I was recently turned down for a position at Eastern Kentucky University because they had to adhere to the "Kentucky Plan." What is this "plan?" Well, Mr. Clegg, I am sure, knows very well that this is reverse discrimination at its most venomous. The university, in MY OPINION ONLY (I want to stress that this is my opinon and I DO NOT put this forward as a scientific fact...again, only my personal opinion and experience) blatently disregarded the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ordering members of a certain department to not consider ANYONE but African-American applicants even if this means lowering the standards to an "MA only" for a full-time faculty position. Of course, this was sent around in a memorandum that was meant to be secret and was, to the chagrin of many university administrators, a major problem. The memo, in essence, stated that the "Kentucky Plan" had to be met and that, it was to be understood, that an African-American would be a finalist for ANY position!! Ok. If this potential applicant is the most qualified, then I think they should be hired...no questions asked. However, how many ABD's in the U.S. and Ph.D's applied for positions at EKU NOT REALIZING that their applications would end up in the trash can without EVEN BEING Considered!! So, to some universities, affirmitive action means only helping African Americans. However, what about other minorities such as Native American Indians??? To use Eastern Kentucky University as an example, the memo I received clearly stated that no other minority, including Native American Indians, were to be considered for this full-time faculty position. The administration's logic was that they needed to "diversify" a certain department. OK. That is all fine. yet, why choose ONE MINORITY (I.E. AFRICAN AMERICANS) OVER ANOTHER MINORITY SUCH AS NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS????? I'm happy to share this memo with any person who might have applied for a full time position in American history at EKU during the 2002-2003 academic year. Believe me, since I used to teach there, that you will be shocked. If there is any person who might have applied for a full-time position position as an assistant professor of history at EKU for the 2002-2003 academic year, then please let me know. You'll be shocked at the memo stating that, if you're NOT of a specific race, then you shall not be a finalist. I believe all people, regardless of race, should be given equal opportunity. Hiring should be a "color-blind" process. I have attempted for months to figure out how the "Kentucky Plan" does not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, after completing 14 months of legal research, I concluded that it is in violation of the Civil Rights Act. Again, if any person reading applied for a position at Eastern Kentucky University for a full-time position with a specialization in American history during the 2002-2003 academic year, then I'll be happy to send this "secret memo" to you. Let the world judge from this one example whether Affirmative Action is the right thing to do. It is not, in my humble opinion. After all, WHAT IS WRONG with hiring faculty members on their credentials and NOT the color of their skin (whether their white, black, or any color)???????? I, again, say that the hiring of faculty should be a "color-blind" process. I believe this to be fair to all. Sincerely, T.H. How pathetic are the supporters... Author: Molly Mfume, Prof. Emeritus, Date: 11-09-04 11:18 This is so predictable. The supporters of this racist, discriminatory program known as "affirmative action" keep coming up with the same stupid, asinine excuses for AA: black enrollments will drop; its just about opportunity; its just making up for past discrimination; it adds diversity to the student body; and so on and so on. Then there's Mark who tries a different twist. The AA programs are altruistic---they're just not implemented correctly. Right. Well gee, Mark, AA programs have been around for over 30 years. You'd think by now SOMEBODY would "get it right". Its time to wake up Mark. The reason the study is correct is because its premise is right on the money: AA programs admit blacks to programs they aren't qualified for. They aren't properly prepared and so they can't compete. They drop out--not because of instutionalized racism--but because they can't compete. This isn't rocket science. If you want black students to compete in top universities, you don't make the changes at the university level. You have to break the strangle-hold of the teacher's unions (AFT and NEA). You've got to prepare the students in primary schools. You've got to allow parents to choose what their students learn and from where they learn it. If you want to have blacks admitted---and succeed---at top universities, then push for school vouchers and destroy the tenure system for primary and secondary school teachers. (I never have understood why some woman whose been teaching the 3rd grade for 11 years needs tenure. Is academic freedom an issue in grade school?) We need to end AA and not bend it. AA is a racist program that doesn't help anyone. And people like Mark who excuse it and Bill who keep juggling figures around until they say what they want are part of the problem... Re: How pathetic are the supporters... Author: Tim Harris Date: 11-09-04 11:44 Dear Professor Mfume: I applaud your recent post! I agree with you. Just wanted to state that for the record. Accountability is the KEY to success and NOT the color of one's skin!!! I don't care what politically active "minority" groups say. In contemporary American African American ARE NOT disciminated against by whites any more than they, themselves, hold a rascist position toward whites and others. My point: Any rascism, affirmative action, or anything less than a "color-blind" hiring process is not conducive to the achievement of a free exchange of ideas in the hope of giving meaning to the facade of "academic and intellectual freedom." Many Ph.D. students will admist that if their interpretations and beliefs differ from thier advisor, then they can expect a long delay before (if they're lucky) receiving their well earned Ph.D. This is not the 1860's or 1950's. Black Americans have not only the law to give them employment support but also the very laws discriminate in the same way that they have said were discriminatory towards them. This is wrong. Discrimination is wrong. Black Americans (I use this phrase rather than "African American" because most Black Americans are no more "African" than I am an "Irish-American." My ancestors came to the U.S. in the early 19th century and I don't consider myself "Irish." Black Amcericans should stop playing the "victim" and accept the fact that they must live up to the same standards as other students (this includes other minorities, such as Native American Indians). If this group thinks that they are truly "equal," then let them show the world that they don't need special laws to "help" them succeed. Let the best qualified, no matter what color, get the best position. This is America. This is Equality. Affirmative Action is Un-American and is a complete slap in the face to the REAL notion of EQUALITY and to the many soldiers who died to protect our right to say what we please in such forums as this. The Hiring process, in any setting, should be color-blind. Again, this is the measure of true "EQUALITY!" T.H. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Diddleweed, Historian Date: 11-09-04 12:26 In response to Tim Harris's post, I must say that if the Kentucky Plan is as blatant as he says it is, this is serious breach of the law. I would urge him to send a copy of the document to the Center for Individual Rights. The contact information is: Center for Individual Rights 1233 20th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202.833.8400 Fax: 202.833.8410 E-mail: cir@cir-usa.org Web site: http://www.cir-usa.org Even supporters of Affirmative Action should be bothered by this. It is actions like these that do much to undermine support for AA, especially when other institutions use it more responsibly. Re: How pathetic are the supporters... Author: Bloom Date: 11-09-04 12:57 Bravo, Molly! Bravo! As I've posted elsewhere, let's KICK THE COLOREDS OUT OF EVERYTHING!! They are NOT WANTED here. How many breaks must WE give to THEM until it becomes PLAINLY obvious that they are qualified to sweep my walk or weed my garden of cook my food or raise my infant children or plant and process my crops and put my buildings up and fight my wars, but, DAMMIT--and I MEAN it now--NOT to go to college with me or mine. And LAW SCHOOL? Please! Who are they going to sue? ME, that's who! And that's only when we impose affirmative action standards on the bar exam! The coloreds are failures in everything we do for them. They do nothing for themselves except, as Molly points out so correctly, whine and wheedle. As Diddleweed proclaims, the price is too high. Let's get them out and get things back to the way they were before affirmative action, when I could hire whomever the hell I wanted and could fire them because I didn't like their smell or accent or look or cuisine. I want things pristine again! I want things merit-based like they were BEFORE affirmative action skewered my life! I've suffered too much for too many generations. Why, a white man today is no more employable, no more pre-qualified, no more prone to being hired first BECAUSE he's white than an unqualifed colored is to do my taxes with my new, and approaching, tax cut! Let's hit the streets, fellow White folks! And I don't mean with the white sheets this time. Everyone knows now that WE'RE the victims! WE'RE the disenfranchised! We want what's rightfully ours. Let's bring the past back--but only the part that benefitted us, because we didn't have anythijng to do with that other stuff. Hell, that was grandpa and grandma and they're long gone. Oh, except that mom and dad inherited their wealth, and passed it on to me and I still have the deeds to the land we "came into" in the old days--after we kicked them colored squatters off who worked it for us, made it fertile and usable. But it was OURS, dammit. We got it fair and square because the colred squatters weren't allowed into the court room to make their claim. Guess there weren't no colored lawyers around then (Ha Ha!). Let's go, White folks! Come on, now! "Weee shallll oh-ver coooommmee...." Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Tim Harris Date: 11-09-04 13:00 To: Diddleweed, Historian... Thank you!!! I want to first say that every statement I made in my previous post can be substantiated by official documents from the aformentioned university. What I want is this: Let me give to all readers all documents that I have pertaining to, what I (and I want to emphasize that is ONLY MY OPINION...Let others decide for themselves) conser is a blatent afront to what Dr. King said in Washington so many years ago. What did he say? I cannot quote directly, but I appeal to those who believe that honesty, justice, and the law is still the best method(s) to decide upon who is "most qualifed" for a faculty position....he said that he dreamed of a day in which all whites and all Black Americans could be TRULY equal in the eye of the law. Let me quote from his famous "I have a Dream" speech. What did Dr. King say: "This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Ok. In this statement Dr. King does not say that "only black americans" should have "a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Rather, he stated IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that "all men" (or "people"... being both women and men)....regardless of race or color (white or black AMERICAN...WE ARE ALL AMERICANS!!!) must be allowed certain "inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." I completely agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "All men" means "all people" in contemporary America. Hence,"all people" (regardless of their color) should be treated EQUALLY without the federal government (or state governments) decide what "equal" truly means. It means that those who work hard, regardless of race, can succeed. The hiring of faculty in PUBLIC universities should be completely color-blind. In my opionion and my opninion only, Eastern Kentucky University violated not only the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but also went against the words of Dr. King when they emphatically stated that only ONE race of people should be EVEN CONSIDERED for a full-time position during the 2002-2003 academic year! If anyone doubts my opinion, then I will be happy to forward to the world the documents that I have. Let THEM speak for themselves. I shall not put forth an opinon on this but beg the readers to judge for themselves whether, in this particular case, affirmative action has gone too far. Again, I am in favor of equal protection for ALL. Many universities interpret the '64 Civil Rights act in a different, selfish, manner. However, I plead to those reading this message to go to GOOGLE or any search engine and read the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then I will send you the documents I have. I want more minds than myself to dwell upon what I consider as a grave injustice being committed by a public university in the name of "affirmative action." I ask only that those who, upon re-reading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, allow me to Email the documents I have to you and let you judge for YOURSELF. Rascism, both real and reverse rascism, are realities in contemporary higher education. I want the world to see what evidence I have and let them make a judgement. Equality before the law is and, should always be, completely COLOR BLIND. Thank you. T.H. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Tim Harris Date: 11-09-04 13:14 Dear Sir: Mr. "Diddleweed:" Please excuse my many typos. I'm not the greatest typist in the world. I will be happy to send these documents to you. I believe that anyone who stands firm against discrimination will be very disturbed by the document I have that is a transcript from a meeting between the chairs and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. You know my position. I believe that all faculty positions should be considered upon merit alone and NOT race. I do not believe that affirmative action is a good policy for contemporary American society. You might disagree with me on this. Yet, I think we both want (at least insofar as we both interpret "fairness" and "equality before the law") fairness in the hiring process and that the evidence I have and am willing to share with the world, is NOT what affirmative action was meant to be and is NOT justifiable. Let the world judge. My opinions do not matter. Let the documents I have, upon release and read by all, be compared with the Equal Opportunity Office's web-site which states that the university is in COMPLETE adherance to the '64 Civil Rights Act. I ask, again, is it SO WRONG to ask for a "color-blind" hiring process? I will support each and every statement made to this colloquy. Please Email me privately if you wish to discuss this further. Thank you all. T.H. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Tim Harris Date: 11-09-04 13:36 To All: Every staement in this post is MY OPINION only and DOES NOT represent the opinion(s) of the university nor anyone other than myself. I do not claim to be correct. I only want people to read what I have posted and let them respond (or not respond) as they choose. I have decided to disclose the memo I received last year. Please read and let me know (either via this forum or through my private Email) whether or not this is, well, a rather questionable basis to hire faculty? And, as Thomas Jefferson once stated, "I swear upon the alter of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over them mind of man(kind)," I, too, ask: does this memo not clearly infer preference in the hiring process? This is discrimination and an attempt to disqualify OTHER minorities, such as NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS, to the benifit of one PARTICULAR group. I'm not saying that this group mentioned in the memo below shouldn't be represented. I only say that, even if you exclude white Americans from applying for the job, it DOES NOT answer the question: What about other minorities such as Native American Indians? This memo clearly and directly states that only a SINGLE group should be considered all, in MY OPINION ONLY, at the expense of other minorities and all other Americans. Is this the proper way to implement Affirmative Action? Please let me know. All people, throughout the USA, who applied at EKU during the 2002-2003 academic year should ask why they were not considered for the job in light of the memo I have now given to the world to read. These ARE NOT MY WORDS. So, judge for yourself whether this is right or wrong. With certain names deleted...here is one memo. Let me know if you think this is a "bad" hiring policy for a public university to follow? Note: The "I" in the memo is NOT me but rather another employee of the university. 25 February 2003 TO: HISTORY FACULTY FROM: ******** (deleted for privacy). SUBJECT: A&S Chairs/Dean meeting Yesterday, at the bi-weekly Chairs/Dean meeting I learned the following: 1. Subject to approval by various vice-presidents, we should have at least two positions to fill at the tenure track level. 2. We most likely will not receive official approval to proceed until it is far too late to undertake a search this year. 3. To meet diversity goals, all advertisements should say that we will consider M.A.'s but prefer Ph.D.'s. This is to encourage black applicants. It is understood that a black applicant is to be a finalist for all vacant positions. If a black applicant is not offered the position, a department will need to provide very specific reasons for not making the offer. The incentive money may be used to provide support for a black M.A. to finish her/his Ph.D. 4. The issue of whether to pay black appointees above the market is still open. Sandra Moore and the Diversity Office are well-aware of the probable reaction, but the truth is that since the late 1960's great universities have paid black academics far more than market price. I suspect that when the incentive plan fails to correct our imbalance EKU will be offering significantly higher entering salaries for black candidates. 5. The matter of who is considered "black" arose. Ms. Moore said that this is mostly a matter of self-identification, but African-Americans, Africans (though not all), Caribbean Islanders, South Pacific Islanders, and some South Americans qualify. East Indians and others from the sub-Continent are NOT black. 6. The EOE office and the Diversity Office will try to make departments aware of who the black applicants may be. Departments are not supposed to know this, but the Kentucky Plan goal must be met. 7. There may be legal issues that arise as to the nature of vacancy notices, how the search is conducted, and the selection of a candidate. Departments are to keep in close touch with Virginia Underwood, Sandra Moore, and the Dean, who himself will be in close touch with Moore and University legal counsel. our search committees will need to be really, really, careful. 8. It was suggested that, if possible, all search committees should have a black member. Let this statement speak for itself. Thank you. T.H. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Fred Smyth, UVa Date: 11-09-04 14:11 Reanalyzing Bowen & Bok's (1998) "Shape of the River" data using multilevel models, my colleague, Jack McArdle, and I found a pattern similarly implicating affirmative action in the disproportionate attrition of underrepresented minority students from science, math and engineering (SME) majors at these selective institutions. Smyth, F. L., & McArdle, J. J. (2004). Ethnic and gender differences in science graduation at selective colleges with implications for admission policy and college choice. Research in Higher Education, 45, 353-381. A copy of this paper may be requested at http://projectimplicit.net/smyth/ To the extent that this pattern holds beyond the Bowen and Bok sample, the potential for impact on thousands of extremely able aspiring minority science students should be cause for focused national attention. Fostering diversity both at selective colleges and in scientific fields is a compelling national interest. We urge institutional leaders to study patterns of science interest, preparation and persistence in their schools, so that they may better consider the goals and needs of their students and, if need be, develop more nuanced institutional goals and policies. It is reasonable to infer from our analysis that a shift to race-blind admission would reduce the racial/ethnic differences in SME persistence we identified (Asians 63%, Whites 55%, and underrepresented minorities 38%), but this obviously would work at cross-purposes to institutions' more general goal of diversifying their student bodies. We think most leaders will want to pursue a balanced, multi-faceted approach to solving this problem. It was beyond the scope of our study to examine programs of support for relatively less well-prepared science students, but such investigation will be critical for institutional leaders who are determined not to trade one nationally important diversity goal for another. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Tim Harris Date: 11-09-04 15:03 to: Bloom Your response is most interesting. You make no logical inferences or conclusions from your blatent emontional statements. That is OK. Emotion is intrinsic to being a human being. That aside, focus upon the question which is whether affirmative action should be applied to law school applicants? Now, let us set aside the "whitey" and other terms for sake, at least a fascimle, of an intelligent conversation. There is very little doubt that affirmative action is in complete violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now, all the "San Francisco" Liberals can argue until Hell freezes over that Black Americans are "discriminated" against in higher education while all along almost every job advertisement in the Chronicle states "minorities and women encouraged to apply." This is a subtle way of stating that "all people are not created equal" and that, in the eyes of liberal law makers, Black Americans are, in some absurd sense, "entitled" to preferential treatment in the faculty hiring process. WHY??????? Most Black Americans are no more "African" than I am "Irish," or a "European-American"...since hyphenations are now "politically correct" in academe. This is NOT the 1950's. America has come a long, long, long way to healing the racial divide. RASCISM IS APPARENT IN *some* of THE BLACK-AMERICAN attitude toward whites. Is this not "wrong?" Or is there a different set of ethical standards that must be adhered to by the so called "held back" in American society in comparison to others? Many, but I reiterate not all, black Americans seem to enjoy the "victim" ploy in order gain both political and social benefits. I ask all people: Rather than concentrate upon one racial group on the melting pot we call "America," why not FOR ONCE admit that Native American Indians are, if NOT MORE, of a "minority" than Black Americans????????? Of course, many black americans will not want to give up their "victim status" to Native Americans. Black Americans are NOT victims, they are EQUALS!! All applicants to law school or any professional school should be admitted on merit ONLY. Black Americans, again, are no more "African" than I am a third generation "Irish-American!." The Irish were not exactly treated "equally" in 19th century America. However, we are all Americans. For God's sake, people, get over your "I want something for free" mentality and accept some accountability!! Other minorities have done so for generations. If a modern "Irish-American" can do so, then why can't other "hyphenated-Americans?" ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL. READ THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964! THIS IS THE GOAL WE SHOULD ALL ASPIRE TO. T.H. Tim exposes the problem Author: Carl Nguyen, adjunct Date: 11-09-04 15:27 I applaud Tim Harris for exposing the insidious methods used to implement affirmative action programs. Wake up folks. That memo to the history faculty is NOT an aborration---it is all too common. For those who believe affirmative action programs are all that great, I would like to see how many of you would object to the following action: *** Let the history department start the faculty search according to the guidelines stipulated in that memo. Then when the black finalist arrives on campus for an onsite interview, show her the memo and ask for her comments. *** For those of you opposed to this action, I have one question. What are you afraid of? Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Roger Clegg, Ctr for Equal Opp Date: 11-09-04 15:33 Bill Kidder asks, "[W]hy did the Center for Individual Rights sue top-tier law schools at the University of Texas, the University of Michigan, and the University of Washington, rather than less selective institutions?" I can't speak for CIR, but I suspect the answer is that a nonselective institution will not use preferences, and less selective institutions will not use them as much as highly selective schools (this much is not disputed, I think). CIR figured--reasonably enough--that it was more likely to win if it challenged a school whose use of race was heavy-handed, since such a use of race is less likely to be found "narrowly tailored," to use the courts' jargon. The schools it chose certainly met that criterion: Students of favored races applying there were much more likely to be admitted with the same or much lower academic qualifications than students of unfavored races. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Bloom Date: 11-09-04 15:49 " If a modern "Irish-American" can do so, then why can't other "hyphenated-Americans?" ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL. READ THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964! THIS IS THE GOAL WE SHOULD ALL ASPIRE TO. T.H." Gosh darnit! I forgot all about that Civil Rights law-thing. You're right, Tim. Because of the '64 law, EVERYTHING and EVERYONE'S EQUAL, now. Wow. How simple. With the stroke of a pen, Voila!--everyone's equal and the past has NO BEARING ON ANYTHING! A third generation Irishman is THE SAME as the descendant of a slave. Past contexts do not matter. Because how can the choices my grandpa made fifty years ago have ANY ramifications on me TODAY? It just doesn't figure. Ah, it's those pesky infr'ences, Tim. Yes, yes, merit ONLY! And preferably MY merit, not some colored's. Why, to strike back the balance, we oughta re-institute--or in some places keep on institutin'--Jim Crow laws for a few decades. Then we catch up. Then we'll know, FOR SURE, that if any colreds sneak through our merit-based system, why, they didn't do it through MY good graces at least. They did it through good ol' fashioned boot strappin'. There are NO Black victims, just as there are no white racists just as there is NO SUCH THING as institutionalized racism. It's a figment of the Pigments! Once we get them out, it'll just be me and ya'll. Like Tim says, "ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL" because of '64, because I've never witnessed racism and have never experienced it and don't spend any time even thinking about it. It's my privilege, you see, and I want it back! There hasn't been racism in this country for 40 years! Not since the '64 law ended it ALL! Let's not shame the coloreds into success any longer by giving them ALL the breaks. If by killing all the abortion doctors and bombing all the Planned Parenthood centers, just ONE woman gives birth, then wouldn't all the cold-blooded murder have been worth it all? If we bomb every godless civilization, strafe the children, the wives, the mothers and daughters, and then strip the sons and fathers and take pretty polaroids of us doing it, and then kill, kill, kill in the name of our freedom loving, Christian god-fearing lifestyle, out of it all comes ONE saved and converted Christian, why, wouldn't it all have been worth it? If we send all the coloreds away, do away with all the laws enacted to address the evils of CENTURIES of racial discrimination and inhumanity, thinking that enough is enough because a study skewers the numbers to show what the researchers wanted to find all along, and ONE colored makes it through on his own--with NO HANDOUTS from us--why, wouldn't it all have been worth it? Couldn't we all sleep better, especially the coloreds, knowing that true merit has been restored. Yes, I think so, too, Tim. Re: Tim exposes the problem Author: Tim Harris Date: 11-09-04 16:22 Dear Mr. Nguyen: Your post was very insightful. The final question is one that all who read my previous post should consider. Personally, I think it is an outrage that some public universities use such methods in the faculty recruitment process. My argument all along is simple: The hiring process should be race & gender blind. Let the best and brightest in any subject be considered for a faculty position or, as is the original subject, admission to law school. There are many silent adjuncts and unemployed Ph.D's in America who know, deep within their hearts, that they denied a position, not because of their credentials, but due to an outmoded set of laws and a medieval menatility that sets forth the absurd notion that one group of people "deserves" preferential treatment. One day, I hope, this land will be rid of the pestilence that is "affirmative action." It is a rascist policy and all too many Ph.D. students and professional school (i.e. law and medical) applicants have felt the sting of this truth. Affirmative action, as the memo I posted earlier indicates, is not even implemented fairly by some institutions that claim to be "equal opportunity" employers. If one is a good student and has done well on the LSAT, then your application to law school should measured on your grades, letters of recommendation, work experience, life experience, etc. Increasingly the injustice of the METHOD that some institutions use to implement their interpretation of Affirmative Action laws is becoming all too apparent. INJUSTICE IS NOT COLOR-BLIND. SO WHY SHOULD THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS OR THE HIRING PROCESS BE COLOR-BLIND? I certainly believe that there are many out there who know these words to be true. It is time to speak out and defend the idea that all people, regardless of race, are EQUAL! No person should be given preferential treatment just because they happened to be born with a particular skin tone. In the end, we are all Americans and should work toward the common goal of equality without having to have outmoded laws to "help" you along. T.H. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Keegan Date: 11-09-04 16:25 Just out of curiousity, if black students admitted under affirmative action -- who supposedly do not necessarily meet a school's hard and fast admissions criteria -- can succeed, eventually, in law school and beyond, how do these admissions policies have any legitimacy? Why not allow other students admittance who are less qualified? On what principles are these admissions criteria based if they actually cannot measure success? Are they simply arbitrary standards, based on tradition and nothing more? One primary question we as a society must ask is, at what point do we as a society decide one has received enough chances to meet the standards? And what exactly constitutes a "chance"? As well, what does it suggest if someone does not meet a standard and is successful? On first examination these seem like rather mundance questions, but probe them more deeply and you will find that our philosophical stance on affirmative action informs our stance on things like parenting, the prison system, welfare, education, employment, health care, etc. -- because all these "systems" require eventual borders and imply scarce resources; that is, not everyone can be in prison (or out), not everyone can have the same high paying job, not everyone can go to law school, not everyone should receive an extension on a paper (or multiple extensions). Parents, for instance, must eventually say, "Sorry kid, you have used up all your chances and you are grounded." Teachers must eventually say, "Sorry young lady, no more deadlines with that paper." And the list of situations goes on. As Americans, we have unfortunately conflated the concept of equality with virtually everything under the sun...as Toqueville feared! So I ask: if we have a reason for admissions criteria, or for criteria for anything, why do we have them, where do they come from, what do they signal, what implications do they hold for society at large and our worldview? Re: How pathetic are the supporters... Author: Junius W. Peake Date: 11-09-04 17:31 Amen, Molly!!! Re: Tim exposes the problem Author: T.H. Date: 11-09-04 17:51 Mr. Nguyen, I appreciate your earlier message. I would greatly appreciate any further insights you have about the memo I exposed to the world. In my opinion, this is affirmative action at its ugliest. I just want others to read my post and express their opinons. It is a unique opportunity to learn what others think. Thanks. T.H. Re: Tim exposes the problem Author: T.H. Date: 11-09-04 18:02 This will be my final message for a while. I'm interested to see what others have to say. However, I want to correct one of the many typos I had in an earlier post. I meant to say the following: INJUSTICE IS NOT COLOR-BLIND. SO WHY SHOULD THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS OR THE HIRING PROCESS NOT BE COLOR-BLIND, Also? I am not the greatest typist. T.H. Interesting Author: Midwest Liberal Arts Date: 11-09-04 20:25 Two issues I am curious about. 1. Why the anger about this particular paper. It is one of many, many papers on the topic dating back to at least Solows (sp?) work. This is nothing new except that the question is being asked by a legal expert and the emperical question is taking place in law and sociology which has been taking place in economics for......35 years? 2. I am being serious in this question. Why is AA debate always framed in racial terms? My university (like 98% of colleges) basically admits anyone who applies. AA is a bit of a joke in the context in that the driving force is ability to pay. (Obviously correlated to race, but that is a whole different topic.) Yet, my school spends upteen million dollars trying to encourage "diversity" which is stictly seen as racial. Where are the fundamentalists? Original AA programs were designed to limit Jewish influence at elite schools. Clearly, it can be used in none racial means. Are some minority populations under-represented in higher educaiton, yes. Could they bring different view points to the classroom, yes. Could devout Assembly of God or poligoumous mormons bring something new to the table. Yes. Why is diversity so narrowly thought of and applied? Is it the easiest to measure? Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Craig S. Andersen. Esq Date: 11-10-04 12:09 To a certain extent, I agree. What message do wesend African-American kids when we tell them, "that's OK. You don't have to work so hard. You're black so you can get in anyway." Especially when law school is a hyper-compeditive environment which rewards hard work and diligence. What message do we send to any minority child when we say, "you're 'x' or 'y' so we don't expect so much from you as we do white kids." This is the sub text of affirmative action and I believe it poisons young minds and programs kids to assumed failure. What's wrong with recognizing the native intelligence of every kid ant telling him or her, "You are smart. You are wonderful and you can do anything you set your mind to and are willing to work to achieve." ? Of course this is a complex issue and there are other factors in play. Kids with two parents do better in school. Translation: If you bring a child into the world, raise him or her! Racism is still alive and well. The best way to kill a stereotype is to overwhelm the would with bright, articulate people of color. This is particularly true when dealing with sports figures and entertainers. The language of commerce is English. One never hears a CEO of a Fortune 500 company talk about his hos.i was fortunate to grow up with articulate parents who tauhgt me to speek well. Poverty is another issue. We need to bulldoze every ghetto and involve people in building their own homes. Neighborhoods, as opposed to 'hoods, nurture kids. Finally, I believe hiring should still be as inclusive as possible. I have had the privilige of working with outstanding professionals who have come from every ethnic background. Different experiences bring different viewpoints to the table. Frequently, this means the difference between success and failure. This is particularly true when tackling complex problems. To conclude, we also need a real dialogue on race in America. As a person of predominantly European ancestry, I can only speak of my observations and vicarious experiencs. I have never experienced racisim and I leave my home every day knowing I won't attract the attention of cops or racists. Re: Interesting Author: Commentator Date: 11-10-04 12:26 The reason that 'diversity' is not taken in a broad sense is that, initially, it was a substitute word for racial goals or racial quotas, narrowly conceived. Since 'diversity' is a much nicer word than 'racial goals' or 'racial quotas' it was difficult to oppose. How could one ever be opposed to 'diversity'? The greatest proponents of 'diversity' were the noticeably non-diverse campus political majority. The new locution is 'diversity broadly conceived.' That means bona fide diversity, hopefully. Re: Interesting Author: Just Curious... Date: 11-10-04 19:08 I'm just curious, do the posters to this colloquy feel personally put out by affirmative action programs? I mean, does the vitriol stem from personal experiences of being told you were not hired or admitted because of affirmative action policies? Or are you all actually concerned about the "failure" rates of Black law students? Do any of you really give a rat's ass about the progress of Black law students? Have you or even anyone you know been denied admission to law school because of affirmative action policies? Do you look to affirtmative action first as the cause for your own failings? It sure seems that way. There's an overdetermined amount of "concern" here about Black law students. Funny, because as a Black law student who attends a fairly prestigious law school in Chicago, I've yet to hear word one from a white administrator or faculty member regarding concern about my progress. And do you know what? I could give a rat's ass what my white--or my fellow Black or Asian American or Latino or Native American or female--colleagues think when they see me in class or seminar. And do you know what else? Neither could any of my professors. And do you know why? Because they no longer see classrooms full of only white males, and I no longer see only white males on the other side of the lecturn, as I did at my small, rural, private undergraduate college. Would I have made it this far without Affirmative Action programs? Am I overly concerned because I'll never know? Oh, I know, all right. I'm doing just fine. I know this, though: without the legacy of Affirmative Action, I would have been passed over without a second thought, like my eighty year old grandfather was at the selfsame institution that I now attend. Please, posters who claim to be so worried about the efficacy of Affirmative Action, re-direct your concern to those who want to tear down Affirmative Action under the pretense of some imaginative universal sense of "fairness." Don't quote the words of MLK. Don't sully his good name, as if he would have been against Affirmative Action, as if he would have eagerly signed on to Newt Gingrich's contract with America, or marched in lock-step with Ward Connerly. Yes, it would be nice if we all lived in a colorblind society, but we don't and there are too, too many people in positions of power who won't, and whose minds are so narrow and so limited that "colorblind" to them means "I don't have to mix with those people and I surely do not have to give them any consideration whatsoever." As a Black person, I know all too well how to circulate in a white world because I know that at the levels of power, whiteness predominates--it's an institutional phenomenon that perpetuates itself with each passing generation. Affirmative Action is meant to break through that insidious cycle. It's not a cure-all, nor does it guarantee success. It offers opportunity where before there was none. Anyone from KY care to comment? Author: Diddleweed Date: 11-10-04 20:57 I am curious if anyone from Eastern Kentucky University has read these posts and cares to comment on the document that Tim Harriss posted concerning the "Kentucky Plan" and the blatantly illegal memo that he posted that says only a black person can be hired for a faculty position. I found the memo very damning. Indeed, I am surprised that no one has commented about it except me. That memo needs to see the light of day in a court of law. I am sure the repercussions for EKU will not be pleasant. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Tim Harris, Eastern KY Uni. Date: 11-11-04 10:56 Hello All, I forgot to mention that if you contact (via Email or telephone) an Easten Kentucky University administator (especially the President, Joanne Glasser or the university Provost, Dr. Chapman) about the memo I posted, then I can assure you that you will have NONE OF YOUR QEUSTIONS answered and I hope that you will see, regardless of my previous posts, that this is not right! I am but one person. I don't care if I am rehired. I only want justice done. I cannot believe that "justice," accordign to Eastern Kentucky University, is hiring their own M.A. graduate (with no Ph.D.), with far LESS experience and education than many other African-American, and other minority (potential) applicants. The full-time vacancy WAS NOT ADVERTISED, in violation of university policy. The person who got the full-time position was THE ONLY APPLICANT and the university's Provost admits this in Emails to me and the offical investigation regarding this matter. I ask only for your opinion. I, once again,l will back up any word, sentence, or accuation with offical EKU documents. These will not be my words. I ask you, the readers to judge. I hope you will respond. Thank you, sincerely Prof. Timotyh M. Harris AA and Racism Author: An Observer Date: 11-11-04 11:21 Racism of the majority against the minority exists in our society. AA tries to do something to overcome it. AA should be stronger or worded more strongly. We should be putting a significant amounts of resources to help those disadvantaged by being the minority (specifically African-American) in our society. If we were to take the economic value of the discrimination African-Americans have seen from slavery to today, the full U.S. GDP or GNP could not pay this group back. The majority should be lucky that they don't have to pay any monetary restitution based on economic principles. The price of AA is infinitely smaller than what is owed to African Americans. Any African American, no matter how well prepared, should be allowed to join any institution they wish. Even with this so-called inequity, we still wouldn't be able to pay that debt. If you do not believe these things than you are an idiot, whether you are in the minority or the majority. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Jgarner Date: 11-11-04 13:47 This is sort of a sad conversation, really. Prejudice is so ingrained into our society that we do not recognize it anymore. Quote... "Are some minority populations under-represented in higher educaiton, yes. Could they bring different view points to the classroom, yes. Could devout Assembly of God or poligoumous mormons bring something new to the table. Yes. Why is diversity so narrowly thought of and applied? Is it the easiest to measure?" So, the questions IMMEDIATELY arise, 1) Are ALL Assembly of God members Devout? (Jimmy Swaggart) 2) Are ALL Mormons polygamous? (Senator Orin Hatch) You see, we immediately attribute traits to individuals because of their membership in groups, race, position in society, et cetera. This is why Affirmitave Action exists. To claim that it unfairly discriminates against a group that it does not protect is obvious. It does. So What? Re: jgarner Author: Midwest Liberal Arts Date: 11-11-04 18:49 Huh? Jgarner wrote: > This is sort of a sad conversation, really. Prejudice is so > ingrained into our society that we do not recognize it > anymore. > So, the questions IMMEDIATELY arise, > > 1) Are ALL Assembly of God members Devout? (Jimmy Swaggart) > > 2) Are ALL Mormons polygamous? (Senator Orin Hatch) > > You see, we immediately attribute traits to individuals > because of their membership in groups, race, position in > society, et cetera. > > This is why Affirmitave Action exists. To claim that it > unfairly discriminates against a group that it does not protect is obvious. It does. So What? Huh? Well, let's take these comments in order. (a) "Prejudice is so ingrained into out society that we do not recognize it anymore" You got me there, none of the statements was prejudicial so what the heck are you talking about. Please, state which statement is prejudice. (b) "Are ALL Assembly of God members Devout? (Jimmy Swaggart)" No, obviously not. But I did not say that. I did say that Assembly of God members bring a different point of view to the classroom. As an extension, I would also say that whether devout or not devout, people of different intellectual experiences and with different intellectual developments bring a different view point to the classroom. Perhaps a better example of a fundamentalist for you to consider is soon to be ex-Attorny General Joh Ashcraft. For the life of me, I can't understand his view points on just about every issue. Nevertheless, as he publically states, his legal development and views are greatly influenced by his religious upbringing and faith. (Inner-twined I believe is the phrase he uses.) Using your convoluted logic, this diversity is either not to be searched out or is not unique in the same manner as racial diversity. So, a law school should have an AA program for Steven Carter but not for the John Ashcrofts of the world? Ok, but you are ignoring the intellectual development of the fastest growing religous movements in the world. This is a point I would explicity reject. (c) "Are ALL Mormons polygamous? (Senetor Orin Hatch)" No, obviously not all Mormons are polygamous. However, all polygamous Mormons (which is what I wrote) are polygamous. If you do not understand the distinction you need to revisit logic 001. Assuming your point is that not all Mormons share a common view point and therefore should not be grouped together. I would completely agree. But, one would rationally expect a wider set of views from a collection that included differing religious, national and racial backgrounds. The interesting issue to me (and the item you label "prejudice") is that we only view racial diversity as being worthy of Affirmative Action. Even more amazing, the racial diversity is limited and explicitly rules out Asian and Sub-Asia (Indian/Pakastani) poplulations. So, some races bring diversity and others do not? Interesting. How bad must the history of the racial group be before it too meets your standards. You might want to read the history of the Chinese in North America before you claim that Hispanics have had it especially bad. There has been plenty of suffering to go around. (d) "You see, we immediately attribute traits to individuals > because of their membership in groups, race, position in > society, et cetera." No, I do not. I do attribute traits to groups which may or may not apply to individuals within the group. However, if you are going to defend AA, you simply must make this assumption that you can attribute traits to individuals because of memberships in a racial group. Otherwise, given the emperical evidence that the benefits of AA fall overwelmingly to the children of the educated elite of the African-American community, the whole AA model becomes impossible ot defend. In other words, the only way you can defend AA is to argue that Black faculty/lawyers/whatever, regardless of background, bring something to the table on the basis of being Black. Fine, make the very prejudice assumption (which, ironically, you accuse me of). (The Steven Carter example again comes to mind, that he is somehow a better professor because he is black yet both his parents were Harvard(?) professors. Yes, a very Black experience. Bet he can relate on a whole different level than I can.) (e) "This is why Affirmitave Action exists. To claim that it > unfairly discriminates against a group that it does not protect is obvious. It does. So What?" Too confusing to figure out what the heck that means. If your comments show us anything, they again demonstrate the intellectual backruptcy of higher education. In a single post you: Misquote Misunderstand and you write statements that have no meaning. Intellectual rigor you lack. What is the purpose of AA? Author: Diddleweed, Tenured Historian Date: 11-11-04 20:53 As I read these posts, I get the feeling that there are several reasons for Affirmative Action (AA). Here is what I am seeing as the purposes for AA: 1. Redress Past Wrongs: Since African Americans were discriminated against in the past, AA is supposed to make up for that. This may be valid, but then why include other groups that have not traditionally suffered past wrongs? For example, why are some recent arrivals from Asia, Latin America, and India counted in AA? They have not experienced past wrongs in this country. Better yet, why are people of Irish ancestry not included in AA? 2. To Help Groups Currently on the Lower Socio-Economic Rungs: Again, this is also seemingly a good idea, but then why do African Americans who were raised in affluent Atlanta or Houston suburbs get a leg up on poor white kids from Appalachia? Why are the poor white kids not included in AA? 3. To Bring Diversity to the Classroom: Also laudable, but is race the only measure of diversity? What about intellectual diversity? Is the color of one's skin the best means of achieving diversity, or are ideas better? Colleges and universities are such left-wing bastions, I would think they would want more conservatives students. Better yet, they should want more students in their 30s and 40s who bring more life experiences. Why is "diversity" only considered in racial terms? You see, no one REALLY knows what the TRUE purpose of AA is. It is sort of in the eye of the beholder. That is one reason that support for AA among the general public grows weaker every year. People will not support policies that do not have well-defined purposes. Now the Bush has a second term and will undoubtedly make the federal judiciary even more conservative (to include the Supreme Court), I bet my bottom dollar that Sandra Day O'Connor's lame defense of AA last year does not last another four years ... and good riddance. Re: Interesting Author: Reality Check Date: 11-12-04 07:23 "I'm just curious, do the posters to this colloquy feel personally put out by affirmative action programs? I mean, does the vitriol stem from personal experiences of being told you were not hired or admitted because of affirmative action policies? Or are you all actually concerned about the "failure" rates of Black law students? Do any of you really give a rat's ass about the progress of Black law students? Have you or even anyone you know been denied admission to law school because of affirmative action policies? Do you look to affirtmative action first as the cause for your own failings? It sure seems that way." Why? You don't even know who these people are, much less what their professional backgrounds are and what produced their concerns about racial discrimination. A little circumspection, please. Racial discrimination is a serious injustice, even if you personally profit from damaging others of different races. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: jgarner Date: 11-12-04 09:28 Dear Midwest Liberal Arts... Insults will get you everywhere. ;>) Hopefully, you do not want to get into the argument about the point that YOU DO have prejudices. If you are alive, you have them. It is an unavoidable hazard for even a LIBERAL intellectual. The point, that you COMPLETELY missed, is that if somebody who calls themself "Midwest Liberal Arts" has prejudice, then what hope do the rest of us have to deny that WE have it, too? AND, when you attribute a characteristic or quality to a group because of what YOU have been told or what YOU have experienced, i.e. polygamous Mormans, devout persons in the Assembly of God church, (who ARE by the way devout in the majority, making the IMPLICATION that MORMANS are POLYGAMOUS in the majority), then you are prejudiced. You, Midwest Liberal Arts, are prejudiced against Mormans. If you want to prove to me that you are not, e-mail me your address and I will send the Morman Missionaries in your area to your home for supper. You see, if you had made a statement that African-American Black people or African Americans could bring a lot to an intellectual conference, THAT would be implying that everyone that you were addressing a prejudice that the majority of your readers hold that they could not. I think that you are complaining too much. Admit to us that you have prejudices, because if you don't, you can never hope to start to overcome them. I stand by my statement. Affirmative Action laws were made to favor certain groups in our society, AND, that is EXACTLY what they do. Do you agree with that premise or not? Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Midwest Liberal Arts Date: 11-12-04 11:29 Well, I was going to follow the approach I used above and again systematically list your mistakes , logical inconsistancies and lack of intellectual rigor. Sadly, they are now too long to list. I will point out that the body of your note is again an arguement in favor of the opposite position you take. (Seriously, I assume (heck, another prejudice of mine) that you have never taken a proof based math class such as Analysis, have you ever taken a logic class?) I will cut to the chase, in your post you asked: "I stand by my statement. Affirmative Action laws were made to favor certain groups in our society, AND, that is EXACTLY what they do. Do you agree with that premise or not?" Answer: Yes I do agree with that point. That is also the reason I disagree with the laws which favor one group over another. Let me ask you, do you believe that writing laws to favor certain groups in our society is morally just? If you feel it is just, please giving me a criteria by which you feel the group should receive favorable treatment. In other words, is it to address past injustices? Is it to aid some ultimate objective such as quality of representation to the court? Xavier Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Anonymous Date: 11-12-04 12:32 Xavier, You wrote: "Let me ask you, do you believe that writing laws to favor certain groups in our society is morally just?" This particular question seems to extend beyond the issue of affirmative action in law school admissions. So let's ask it in a different context. The Bush administration has been writing tax laws that systematically favor the wealthy over lower and middle class people. Is this morally just? Another one: The Christian right has been pushing the Bush administration to write laws that favor their beliefs over the beliefs of other faith communities and those who aren't religious. Is this morally just? Another: Many states and municipalities have written laws that favor non-smokers over smokers. Is this morally just? Tax deductions for mortgage interest on home loans favor home owners over renters. Is this morally just? I could go on. The point is that governments constantly write laws that favor one group over another. That is one of the major functions of government and it's not the issue here. In fact, many of the arguments brought up in this discussion fail to address the very thorny issues invoved in affirmative action in admissions to elite professional programs. Since these discussions all too often degenerate into personal attacks and misrepresentations and since much of the most egregious nastiness in this discussion is coming from the anti-affirmative action crowd, I'll state for the record that I oppose most race-based affirmative action programs and policies. So please respond to issues and refrain from assuming things about me. Reply to jgarner Author: Diddleweed Date: 11-12-04 12:45 "I stand by my statement. Affirmative Action laws were made to favor certain groups in our society, AND, that is EXACTLY what they do. Do you agree with that premise or not?" In response, I do not agree. If you read my post above, you will see that the reason I do not agree is that no one has ever, to my satisfaction, explained to me the purpose of Affirmative Action. Therefore, since it does not have a clear purpose, I do not agree with your premise. Moreover, you do not solve one kind of discrimination by simply creating another. "An Observer" is oh so typical Author: Molly Mfume, Prof. Emeritus Date: 11-12-04 12:48 To "An Observer" It is you madam who is the racist. It is you madam who wants to looks to the past instead of into the future. It is you madam who has blantantly disregarded all those people who fought for civil rights over the last few decades. It is you madam who uses terms like "idiot" to describe anyone who disagrees with you. (A typical tactic of those on the extreme left who can't make any credible arguments.) AA is be definition racist. If you do not believe this, then you just aren't paying attention. Reply to Anonymous Author: Midwest Liberal Arts Date: 11-12-04 14:27 No, I do not feel any of those actions are morally just. Among the issues you listed, I would rank some as more evil or dangerous than others. In addition, among the issues you listed, I would list the degree of responsibility of the voting public as greater or lower than others. All of that is also seemingly irrelivant. Clearly many things as individuals and are bad/not morally just. Does this mean that it is alright to do/defend other things which are also bad? In short, I agree with everything you have written. I intended the question to center around the defence of AA. Rest assured, if the question involved home interest deductions, I would have also been critiquing the argument. My original post that jgarner attacked was trying to ask 2 questions. First, why do we get so worked up about AA. Seems like every 6 months another AA article comes out which challenges the results of AA. Yet, this was addressed 35 years ago. Is the difficulty that social thought is so compartmentalized that very few people are aware of standard ideas outside their discipline? If so, the intellectual bankruptcy I mentioned earlier is more widespread than I realized....To put it another way, it is obvious that AA drops the number of Bar eligible Black lawyers....emprically this was answered a long, long, long time ago. So why the big issue now? Second, (I will reiterate that I am serious) why is diversity defined the way it is? While jgarner got pretty worked up over this, I will repeat my original point. Diversity is oddly thought of as racial diversity. But even that definition rules out certain races as adding to diversity. I am hoping some strong defender of AA will give me a simple explaination so that I too can defend AA. The difficulty was and remains the defenses are so amazingly poor. While I oppose AA, I really, really want to defend it. Other than the seemingly practical argument made by (of all places) the US military in the last Supreme Court Case (UN of MI vs someone) which is a very, very narrow arguement. Again, I am looking for a concise, thoughtout arguement. Xav Re: The price of affirmative action Author: Observing Realist Date: 11-12-04 16:27 I'm going to go out on a limb and make some fairly un-PC statements based on my own personal thoughts and opinions, but I think they need to be said: First, affirmative action is racial and gender discrimination, plain and simple. This is an undebatable truth. Second, affirmative action discriminates against people who for the most part have done nothing wrong or deserving of being discriminated against, and is provided for the benefit of people who have for the most part suffered little to no discrimination. Others have covered the issue of recent immigrants receiving the benefits of aa, so I won't go into it here. However, we need to understand that affirmative action for American women - who for the most part are the most privileged group in human history - is completely unjustified. And if you consider affirmative action for women as a redress for *past* injustice, then it's even more obvious how unjust and malignant aa for women is. Consider that no woman born after 1960 (and probably even earlier) is likely to have been discriminated against because of her gender, so currently aa for such women is justified based on alleged injustice committed against their mothers and grandmothers. So, considering that the *real* victims of gender-based discrimination - the mothers and grandmothers of college-aged girls - are just as likely to have had sons, when you discriminate against contemporary boys (via the reverse-discrimination that aa is), you are committing yet another act of discrimination against those women who were unlucky enough to have sons as well as grow up and work during times of *real* bias against women (i.e., the 1930s, 40s, and 50s). And further, at the same time, you reward the daughters and granddaughters of the men who were discriminating against women when discrimination against women was real and significant. So, justifying gender-based affirmative action favoring females to make up for the sexism that their mothers and grandmothers endured ignores the reality of biology vis-a-vis the probably of having male as well as female children. Thus, affirmative action for contemporary women is not only unjustified and undeserved, it actually rewards the daughters of men who actively discriminated against women in the past. Third, affirmative action is one of the most wasteful practices that American society has created. It is clear to me that generally speaking, the more a university, corporation, or other organization embraces so-called "diversity" via affirmative action, the more inefficient, wasteful, and unproductive that entity becomes. For example, many universities have dumbed-down the curriculum so that practically anyone in the current study body can graduate, often times with inflated GPAs (especially if they follow an ethnic or gender ghetto degree path like African American or women's studies). This in turn requires employers who embrace aa policies to waste massive amounts of resources dealing with the problems associated with hiring and retaining people who are not really qualified applicants. It not only wastes resources within the employing entity (e.g., corporation, manufacturer, bureaucracy, etc.) but it affects the quality of the product or other deliverable as well. And this has negatively affected the ability of U.S. and other (e.g., European, etc. ) corporations that employ affirmative action to compete on the world markets. Frankly, I think the rationale stating that employees have to understand other cultures in order to be efficient and competetive in the global economy is severely overblown, at best. As for whether or not I'd be bothered if the academy, corporate America, etc., became less "diverse" or even mostly white and male, I say no, it wouldn't bother me one bit. Nor would it bother me if a corporation or other entity became mostly black, female, etc. Diversity is for the most part a severly overblown and irrelevant issue re. workplace effectiveness and efficiency. I think it might be a lot more boring and mundane if things were lily-white or homogeneous in other ways, but I'm not in school or at work to be entertained; I'm there to be as productive and efficient as possible, and to do the most to make the university or corportation the best it can be. Period. And I have to say, the so-called "diversity" that university academics are so obssessed with (i.e., racial and gender diversity) has provided not one bit of value to my education or work experience, other than perhaps to drag down the grading curve while I was in college. My major was hard science, and the African Americans and women in my classes provided no "unique" perspective because of their race and gender. They surely contributed to my learning, but that was because they were very intelligent and hard-woring, which is a trait that transcends race, gender, ethnicity, and other such politicized characteristics. Summarizing, in my opinion affirmative action in the name of "diversity" or for any other reason is not only morally (and likely legally) wrong, it's a complete waste of time and finite resources. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Dale, IUPUI Date: 11-12-04 16:30 I was hoping someone would mention the word equality and what Affirmative Action intends to do. Affirmative Action intends to create equal opportunities and access for under-represented persons in professions and institutions nation-wide. Surely we can all agree that this was the original intent. What I have not seen is a discussion of equality, as in, equality of what? Equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome? Affirmative Action is a plan that, when executed correctly and appropriately (not in the EKU situation), guarantees equality of opportunity and access, not outcome. We can go on and on about how this or that minority group doesn't succeed in higher ed, or law school, or med school, or dog grooming school. However, it's the opportunity to succeed in those places that Affirmative Action is meant to ensure, and that alone. Equal protection is a good thing - and Affirmative Action ensures that all get equal protection - because current and past injustices are ongoing and still influencing our discussion. I think Anonymous' response to Xavier is spot on regarding preferences. The government gives preferences to those with the most power - and will continue to give that preference. Here's another one, though. The government currently encourages and promotes heterosexual marriage, yet bars equal protection under law for those who are not heterosexual. This is a blatant double-standard and discriminatory. Just another example of government preferences that those who disagree with me are A-OK with. Re: "Molly" is oh so typical Author: Mollywatch Date: 11-12-04 18:50 "It is you madam who has blantantly disregarded all those people who fought for civil rights over the last few decades." Unlike you, Molly, who posts in such diligent support of leftwing lib--er, that is, self-entitled liber--er, I mean, uh...oh yeah, commie symapthizing liber--I mean...or, um...radical progressivist liber--whoops!--that is--CIVIL RIGHTS workers. Yes, yes, that's the term you use, as if you've spent your entire career in defense of them, railing as you do against anyone who voices a perceived slight from the mainstream. You and Junius Peake--"Professors emerita." Right. Or did these places just want to get you the hell out of their departments? Would I love to do a survey of YOUR former colleagues! But, of course, you appear nowhere on the web, leading me to believe that you are nothing more than an ignoramus hiding under a pseudo-moniker. You're a sidelight, Molly. That is the most and the best that can be said of you (and your partner in stupidity, the puffed up "Professor" Peake). You simply make readers shake their heads and chuckle, but nobody takes you seriously. Look in the mirror, Molly. How can you take YOURSELF seriously? You're a clown. A sad, funny clown. And sadder still if it happens to be true that you were indeed a professor. But good, if such is the case, that you're no longer in the classroom. Poor Molly, such a sad, sad fool are you. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Frank Washington Date: 11-12-04 20:24 Affirmative Action will always be a sore subject in this country. It's a sad case in this country's history that we had to resort to quotas and affirmative action to even off the odds for blacks. I think there is a place in society for just and true studies, but keeping in mind all studies are not just and true. I also feel there are good black students in law school who are doing their best to complete their studies in an honorable manner. I think once we start saying affirmative action allow black students to placed in areas where they cannot compete is "semi-true". We cannot lump all black students into one bowl. There are some good students and there are definitely some bad ones. Unfortunately, the only way these students are "weeded" out is to allow them to try. Affirmative Action give students, that may not have the chance otherwise , the opportunity to attempt this trying task. The Supreme court did not make a bad decision, but a decision based on the above premise. It's unfortunate in this country we still need such protections as Affirmative Action to give blacks the opportunity to try. Re: "An Observer" is oh so typical Author: An Observer Date: 11-12-04 20:43 Never said who was and wasn't racist, never used the term. And yes, I am just as racist as everyone else is in society, don't deny it, and neither should you. So the term idiot is better than racist since we are all racist, whether we like it or not. I am using a very logical economic reasoning. The past is part of us and needs to be evaluated in any decisions for the future. I don't think the civil rights movement went far enough, they are still fighting for rights in the present, and will continue to do so in the future. To blindly ignore the past builds more idiocy in decisions for the future. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Snark Again Date: 11-13-04 11:00 [quoting]Some schools even enjoy the poor retention rates as it could mark their institution as b<i>ing "strongly competitive". [end quote] Someone hints at a dark little secret. In many areas, certain groups are recruited to provide background color, flavor and interest for the other students and to fill up the bottom of the class. There are lots of silly cover stories and explanations. Take point four of Bill Kidder, Equal Justice Soc -- what a kidder. He makes the point that there is a spread in admissions, so what does it matter that the spread drops into the bottom for affirmative action? Ignoring little facts, such as the reality that the "dip down" group flunks out at an accelerated rate and otherwise fails to thrive .... he comes to conclusions that don't follow the logic. Or his point about elite schools, an area where Sander's article points out that AA isn't harmful. So, does Bill acknowledge that he and Sander agree? Or does he take a cheap shot? And what does that tell one about David Chambers, Tim Clydesdale, and Richard Lempert? Too much. Real life minstrel shows continue, which is a pity, while people like Sander, a life long committed liberal intent on doing something to help others and to seeing more Black lawyers in practice, get ignored, capping as they do almost two score years of economic studies and data. The only important difference between the general economists' work and Sander is that his focus is on an area where (unlike undergraduates) the AA admits are below the bar for all other admit groups (whereas in undergraduate programs, AA admits are generally #2 of the four groups admitted). Anyway, are disadvantaged students really just part of the mix for color, entertainment and a little bit of self-righteous posturing (as many Ivy students reflect "I've met Blacks, and they really just don't cut it, too bad, so sad") or should they be entitled to real education, real opportunity and real advancement? The hidden issue is should we be still exploiting Blacks? Or should realistic steps be taken to provide help instead of the current exploitation that is covered by the term "affirmative action?" Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Anon Again Date: 11-13-04 11:04 I know it is too much to hope anyone actually read the article they are commenting on, but, can anyone deny: # After the first year of law school, 51 percent of black students have grade-point averages that place them in the bottom tenth of their classes, compared with 5 percent of white students. "Evidence suggests that when you're doing that badly, you're learning less than if you were in the middle of a class" at a less-prestigious law school, Mr. Sander says. # Among students who entered law school in 1991, about 80 percent of white students graduated and passed the bar on their first attempt, compared with just 45 percent of black students. In a race-blind admissions system, the number of black graduates passing the bar the first time would jump to 74 percent, he says, based on his statistical analysis of how higher grades in less competitive schools would result in higher bar scores. Black students are nearly six times as likely as whites not to pass state bar exams after multiple attempts. Do David Chambers, Tim Clydesdale, and Richard Lempert have contrary facts or are they just sniping at strawmen in the rush to deny that they have harmed two generations of Blacks more than any other effort since Jim Crow? Have they no guilt? No shame? Re: AA and Racism Author: Keegan, Chicago Date: 11-13-04 11:27 "An Observer": You are certainly not the only one guilty of this in the forum here, but the use of such wide, sweeping personal attacks -- calling anyone who disagrees with you an "idiot" -- is simply the other side of the same issue you are fighting. That is, racism develops out of wooden stereotypes that become ingrained through the lack of perspective-taking and reciprical recognition of the Other. One of the amazing points of Robert Axelrod's work on cooperation is that cooperation can only ensue if both groups finally learn to forgive past transgressions. At some point ladies and gentleman, color has to be less of a defining issue for identity, and King's sense of a "beloved community" must win out. I agree that institutional barriers clearly exist; I'll agree that AA has made strides in correcting certain inequalities in society; I'll agree that much more has to be done. But what I will not accept is the notion that forgetting standards, waving admissions criteria, and simply letting anyone into any institution is a bright or even circumspect idea; this will only lead to greater problems for everyone. As I mentioned in my last posting, standards and criteria for admission should serve a purpose. Now, as I said before, what those purposes are, how they should work, and why we use them, must be better fleshed out than they are at present. Anyone who has taught a classroom of students and used an assessment should realize that an assessment serves a purpose -- or should serve a purpose. How many of you would simply let a student walk away with an A in a course for which she did not "earn" the grade? And why? On one hand, standards and criteria attempt to offer consequences -- good or bad -- for accomplishments. On the other hand, standards and criteria attempt to drive a selection process that is looking for suitability. Look, more than once I have taught supposed upper-level courses to a class of students, many of whom were not ready for the material, thus slowing down the course and essentially wasting the time of those students who were ready. The same goes for law schools. But again, there is a wider issue here that involves a re-examination of standards and criteria and their purpose. And that issue must address the inequalities of socioeconomic status, institutional racism, and the attempt to move forward as a society. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: Thomas Wilson Date: 11-14-04 12:22 I believe that Affirmative Action (hereafter referred to as "The Price") is a necessary evil with certain benefits. Certain institutions and individuals have proven their "untrustworthiness", even in the face of societal change. Likewise, the federal government--regardless of which party is in charge--hasn't been aggressive enough in stamping out discrimination. Concerning the charge of the The Price's promotion of unqualified students, I think this is a non-issue. The pursuit of higher learning is either "sink or swim"; some can handle it while some cannot. This should be the ideal venue in which to demonstrate Darwinian struggle, rather than allowing the process to be derailed by uncover racists who have exchanged white robes for black. Re: "An Observer" is oh so typical Author: GollyMolly Date: 11-14-04 15:45 Molly said: "It is you madam who has blantantly disregarded all those people who fought for civil rights over the last few decades." That's right. In fact, Molly, didn't I see you in Birmingham in '63? Were you the one on horseback, dressed in riot gear, whiplash raised high? Fightin' off those colluders and troublemakers who were crowding the streets demanding things they never "deserved"? Impinging on your civil right to think of them and treat them as less than human? Or was that you in Forsythe County, GA, throwin' rocks at the busload full of Affirmative Action goons who were invading your space with their noise and commotion? Was it you with your fist held high, screaming "Fight the powers of repression! Turn the hoses on 'em, Bull Conner! Wait 'til nightfall, then we'll really show 'em whose civil rights they're steppin' all over!" Or was that you across the street from the MLK memorial in Birmingham screaming at the children who had placed their hands in the water at the fountain to "stop blocking the sidewalk, you self-entitled little brats! Get back to your shack of a school!" Was that you, Molly, on Phil Donahue, who stood up and protested that "the Blacks get everything in this country and they don't do anything to earn it! I never done nuthin' to 'em and no law's gonna make me think any better of 'em!" And when Phil asked "Madam, why do you think like that?" You replied, "It's my [civil] right!" Yes, Molly, I can tell from all of your previous posts that there is no stronger supporter of civil rights than you. Unlike you, though, I don't think that "civili rights" was nothing more than an era in history now to be discarded and forgotten, as if a few years will make up for a few centuries of blatant racialized discrimination and then let's call it a wash and get back to the way things were before. Minds don't change that quickly, as is evidenced by the horribly racist posts on this colloquy and others against affirmative action. "Who me? Why, how dare you call ME a racist! I'm the VICTIM here because I'm white and because I don't get ALL those breaks that Blacks get--those lazy, self-entitled, ignorant, stupid, hip-hop rappin', failing Blacks who OVERFILL the ranks of our law schools, keeping us smart, better qualified, much more humane and prone-to-be-successful white males to a minority that you can barely even SEE anymore!" Poor Molly. Nostalgic for the good ol' days in South Africa when Mandela was where he belonged and the Boers ruled the roost. Re: The price of affirmative action? Author: YAWN Date: 11-15-04 12:41 "Among students who entered law school in 1991, about 80 percent of white students graduated and passed the bar on their first attempt, compared with just 45 percent of black students. In a race-blind admissions system, the number of black graduates passing the bar the first time would jump to 74 percent, he says, based on his statistical analysis of how higher grades in less competitive schools would result in higher bar scores. Black students are nearly six times as likely as whites not to pass state bar exams after multiple attempts." Hell, I say we bring back Jim Crow--hell, let's just bring slavery back! Can you imagine how the numbers for Blacks passing the bar exam would just SOAR, according to Sander's logic? Hell, we might even elect us a Black president if take everything away. That way there'll be no doubts about how a Black "made it," only incredulous disbelievers (cf, the "trial" of Phyllis Wheatley on the veracity of the authorship of her poems). Equality of opportunity HURTS Blacks, so let's take it away from them--after all, it was US what gave it to 'em in the first place, right, my fellow fed up white posters? Only 45% passing the bar on the first try? Not bad, I say, considering that only a few generations ago Blacks were denied admission virtually en masse and prima facie from non-Black colleges, a consideration that goes right on by Sanders. Is that a number that's rising or falling, according to Sanders? He doesn't say. How do you think YOU'D have fared, my fellow fed up white posters, had YOU gone to law school under similar circumstances? Oh, but that's right. The past doesn't touch us here in the present. Cause and effect only applies when you whine about your own "innocence," and then it doesn't extend beyond--what--a couple of years at MOST? When the article mentions the "experience" of minorities in law school or other graduate programs, does that mean ANYTHING to you, my fellow fed up white posters? Or do you think, "Hell, I had a GREAT time in college--frats, beer parties, stumbling around drunk in my college town, screaming at the top of my lungs just cuz I was drunk and happy, defacing public property, stumbling into class hungover and laughing/spewing in the back with my buds. I never EVER thought of myself as a MINORITY and I never thought about them either. So what are they whining about with their 'experience'?" YOUR experience was fun because you had the advantage, the privilege in this case, of racial invisibility. Think you could have gotten away with any of that stuff if you were one of a few hundred white guys on a campus of tens of thousands of Blacks or other minorities? And that experience isn't law school or grad school, in which case, you'd be one of two, maybe three if the law school were "diverse." Sanders crunches the numbers, but his interpretation comes straight out of White sociology: "WE have done too much for THEM. THEY cannot do for THEMSELVES even though WE'VE flung the doors open to THEM." He gives no historical context for his findings and his narrow ideological bias in the "interpretation" of his numbers--that affirmative action is to blame--blindly and willfully oversimplifies what could have been an otherwise intriguing study. Re: Observing realist is oh so typical Author: Realer realist Date: 11-15-04 15:04 [Mis]observing realist concludes: "Summarizing, in my opinion affirmative action in the name of "diversity" or for any other reason is not only morally (and likely legally) wrong, it's a complete waste of time and finite resources." Wow, man. Stay in your cave, okay? Roll that rock back over the opening so that it's nice and impenetrable. It's really too late for you to be poking your head out now and start making observations. Geez, I mean how far back would we have to go to get you caught up? Go back to your small, small, rural, rural isolated, insipid, lily-white, male-dominated patch of hay. You're just mouthing idiotic dirivel that you heard from some a.m. radio jock in your hayseed existence. Where were you educated? What was the last book you read? Where have you ever been that you can make such bone-headed claims? Nowhere except the fantasies in your head, right? Right. Oh yeah, I forgot to open by mentioning that I'm going to say some things about you that might be considered un-PC... Re: Reply to Anonymous Author: J garner Date: 11-15-04 17:06 Quote, "Let me ask you, do you believe that writing laws to favor certain groups in our society is morally just? If you feel it is just, please giving me a criteria by which you feel the group should receive favorable treatment. In other words, is it to address past injustices? Is it to aid some ultimate objective such as quality of representation to the court? " AND... "While I oppose AA, I really, really want to defend it. Other than the seemingly practical argument made by (of all places) the US military in the last Supreme Court Case (UN of MI vs someone) which is a very, very narrow arguement. Again, I am looking for a concise, thoughtout arguement. " Xavier Well, Xav, Now we are getting somewhere. As for this attack business, it is not you, it is the concept. Just remember, it is not ever personal. I do not even know you. Clearly, Affirmative Action has a great legacy of being spawned in an era of prejudice where white folk could get away with the murder of black folk with a wink and a nod to the jury, who were always white folk cut from the same cloth. This is why you want to defend it. Our guilt and our victim roles as a society are almost ingrained into our psyche. What do we have to do to shake it? Molly Mfume makes some WONDERFUL points about Affirmative Action. What we must debate is the question, "Have we outgrown A.A. as a society?" Who is A.A. helping now and how is it helping them? Can we look thorough the veil of guilt as a society who has behaved in a prejudiced manner for over 100 years and then has recently (in the last 3 or 4 decades) came to grips with the consequences of its actions? Will groups in our society that feel that A.A. must continue to exist ALLOW us to forget and to forgive as a society and behave as ONE people? Clearly, the argument that prejudice is always going to be present in our society is being used to perpetuate A.A. at the price of creating prejudical racial role reversals. Or is it? If it is not then is A.A. creating a perpetual second class by its very existance? So, when did A.A. became morally wrong, if indeed it has? Are we all ready to lay down our ghosts and realize that two wrongs cannot make a right, if we deem A.A. as a concept whose time is past? Finally, which one of you out there, with sincerity, can claim that our society looks at race the same way that it did in 1954? Who really believes that we as a society will EVER go back to those days? Is A. A. your security blanket, your reparations or is it your just punishment for having bad grandparents? Xav, sorry that it took so long for me to respond. I was out of town... John Re: Observing realist is oh so typical Author: Observing Realist Date: 11-15-04 17:16 Ah yes Ms./Mr. "Realer realist," the ad hominem attack - how very quaint and (un) orginal. If you have something meaningful to say besides the pompous, self-indulgent, venom you're spewing at me and others with whom you disagree, (i.e., by offering us a cogent - or hell, even an incoherent (which might be all you're capable of) - opposing argument addressing the actual *issues* raised) then by all means go for it. Otherwise, you're just wasting all of our time. Or do you just like seeing your vapid ranting on the same page as real thinkers? "Mirror, mirror on the wall"... |
Copyright © 2004 by The Chronicle of Higher Education