The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

This discussion is closed. This is a transcript.

Minority programs no longer?

Author: Colloquy Moderator
Date: 03-12-04 10:26

Colleges throughout the United States are opening programs hitherto reserved for minority students to white students as well, in order to avoid legal trouble. Is that a wise move? Can the programs make such changes and remain true to their missions of helping minority students to succeed? Read more ...

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: James Madison University
Date: 03-15-04 07:30

At JMU, we have recently embarked on an effort to diversify our campus. This initiative is based on recommendations from a commission comprising of a cross-section of the campus. One of the centerpieces of this effort is the establishment of a Centennial Scholars program that would be open to all students based on need and merit. The program will cover the full direct cost for four years and participants will take part in several activities to ensure their success at JMU. Given that one of the major reasons why minority students have not enrolled at JMU in the past few years is financial, our goal is to remove this barrier. This a step towards diversifying our campus without excluding qualified and deserving students. A look at the Meyerhoff program at UMBC indicates that opening up a program to all students can still lead to high achieving minority students if programs designed to ensure their success are in place.

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Robert Jinkens, PhD, Hawaii
Date: 03-15-04 09:03

Discrimination is wrong whether it is non-minority against minority or minority against non-minority. Everyone should be treated the same.

Help for all who need it.

Author: Regional Private Northeast
Date: 03-15-04 09:26

I don't see a problem with opening up programs to students of any race who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. I do take issue with the "everything shoud be open to everyone" philosophy, though. There is no reason who colleges shouldn't be allowed to target those that need more assistance. We shouldn't be pretending that opportunities are the same for everyone across the board at the high school level, or that race is not factor in American life.

Re: Help for all who need it.

Author: Mark Flowers, Academic Adviser
Date: 03-15-04 12:03

The idea of diversity has seemed to evade most colleges because attracting minority students is a very difficult task. Primarily because to most minority students, college attendance is predicated on if they could stay near home because of the creature comforts, but additionally, staying close to the jobs that are near home. Also, because college tuition is becoming increasingly unrealistic when Pell and Stafford grants and loans aren't increasing along the same lines, many students depend on a "program" to aid in college attendance. So many schools resort to handing out scholarships or run programs based on race affiliations making white students very angry. Particularly those who aren't in the upper class group but mostly whites who are on some "legality" kick because they need money as well. The hard truth is that minority groups have traditionally been underrepresented in higher education mainly because of lack of money, but also because information on universities, their cost and their purpose is sorely missing from the discussion tables at home and the guidance counselor's office in high schools.

The hard truth is that people still don't want to talk or acknowledge how severe American racism has been for minorities. This has set minorities so far back (education and fiscally) that minority-geared programs aren't just a necessity, but a must. This fact cannot be overlooked and it should be address in some fair way. I understand that there are some white low-income families that are in need of assistance too. However, opportunities for that population a far more promising to such a small group compared to the vast majority of minorities who never get the opportunity to go toward higher education. Basically, the question is: has thirty years of Federal, State and University "diversity initiatives" done the job? If so, then yes, open the floodgates for all. If not, and I don't think it has, do what we can to assure that all minorities have that fighting chance to get the same opportunity as others without impediments.

Ok to answer the question: Is it wise to open once minority geared programs to whites? Yes. Is it fair? No.

Jinkens is wrong, wrong, wrong

Author: Mary McGowan, UMass
Date: 03-15-04 12:18

Robert Jenkins is another one of those in the academic elite who perpetuates the (false) belief that racism is at the very core of everything. Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of these idiotic statements like "we shouldn't be pretending that opprotunities are the same across the board." Yes they are.

Okay, Robert, let's see the evidence. Please indicate---by name---the university that is purposely holding back minorities solely because they aren't white. Please provide the data (i.e, enrollment numbers) to justify your assertions. Also please list those specific policies colleges that intentionally target minority students for discrimination. As a service to the rest of use, it would be helpful if you can provide details on how we all can obtain hard copies of these policies so we can study them ourselves.

If you cannot provide such evidence, I will expect to see your retraction in this colloquy.

Thank you.

Re: Jinkens is wrong, wrong, wrong

Author: Regional Private Northeast
Date: 03-15-04 13:52

Actually, there was a study done in the recent past (perhaps someone can provide a link) of college admissions practices. In the study, researches took the same college application and on one labeled the kid black, and on the other white. All else was identical. Guess what? The white kid was admitted more often than the black kid.

In any case, your argument is a little beside the point. Despite what I posted above, most Af-Ac programs are not predicated on the idea that the Universities are holding back minorities, they are predicated on the idea that mnorities are less likely to have access to the same things that would make them competitive in a college application pool. In other words, they are more likely to go to an underfunded high school (no AP classes, SAT tutoring, extracirricular activities, badly trained guidance counselors, etc), more likely to have parents who have never been to college and are thus wholly unprepared for the application process, more likely to have feelings of isolation and disconnectedness when adjusting to college, etc. All of that is very well documented.

Now, I can see why class should be taken more into consideration, should EVERYONE be included? No.

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: RJM
Date: 03-15-04 15:11

I am glad that there is an attempt to discuss the issue of discrimination on somewhat of a national scale, but this discussion alone does not sustain itself. The real issue is that of racism, however, the lack of acknowledgement and discussion of the injustices committed against people of all races is why we are discussing this issue. Moreover, I am perturbed by the notion that discrimination is synonymous with racism. The lack of a national dialogue and correcting of the mis-education of Americans continually perpetuate this thread of thinking.

In any dictionary, one may find varying definitions of what the terms discrimination and racism actually mean, but for the purposes of this discussion I will use definitions provided by the third edition American Heritage College dictionary. When one weaves through the web of definitions one comes to two poignant distinctions of the term "discrimination." The first being, Discrimination: The ability or power to make fine distinctions; discernment. The other definition is more poignant to this argument. That is: treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice. I leave it up to you to interpret what each meaning connotes.

It is my belief that racism is a more difficult term to define because its meaning is elusive and is misconstrued with interpretation. This dictionary defines it as, "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to other." They provide a second definition, which states simply that racism is "discrimination or prejudice based on race."

I read an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (Not Just For Minority Students Anymore 3/19/04) and a question was posed. The question asked, "Can the programs make such changes (by admitting white students) and remain true to their missions of helping minority students to succeed?" The simple answer to that question is yes. However, if probed further, clearly, there is still an injustice committed against qualified students of color who may need the support and guidance provided by programs that focus on the psychosocial and non-cognitive needs of students. These programs were brought forth to help alleviate and accommodate the wrongs committed against students of color in the past and to "try" to level the playing ground for all students who were qualified to compete at the collegiate level.

I must reiterate the latter point because it seems that people whose commitment to address these injustices have been accused of "handing out." My question is handing out what? Rarely is the question asked, "How can we fairly address this issue knowing what we know about reparations and injustices committed against people today and in the past?" Rather, the assumption is always made, "those under qualified and unintelligent people are taking my seat and they have no right to attend that prestigious four-year college."

Since this whole debate is a matter of interpretation, I will give my definition of the two. Discrimination is the tool used by people in power, regardless of race or sex, used to dictate, delineate, and dilute any chances for success to anyone that deviates from that power. In addition, I define racism as a form of discrimination that devalues, dehumanizes, and demonizes people of color who have fought for civil and legal liberties to be recognized and treated as human beings. Those programs were established because there were injustices committed against people of color on a national scale on a daily basis. Thus, the claim that programs whose historical mission was to allow students of color an opportunity to compete at and succeed at premiere institutions of this country are now being decried as discriminatory is confusing to me.

Herein lies the problem. Interpretation leads to many misconceptions and assumptions. Due to the psychological, emotional, educational, and economic traumas that these people endured, it was almost impossible for them to attempt an educational journey beyond high school, let alone attend college. Furthermore, if by chance they were allowed to attend college, they were subjugated to race, class, and psychological racism, making it very difficult to retain and graduate students of color. As time would have it, retention research and longitudinal studies done on cohorts of the pioneers of these programs (see Sylvia Hurtado's work), the results were astonishing. Students who were deemed "unqualified" were actually succeeding and excelling once provided with the proper scaffolding and educational resources provided by college. As a result, many colleges today can attribute their high retention rates for students of color to these programs.

Fast-forward to the present. Now almost five decades since the gates were opened, gatekeepers are now enlisted to keep opportunities at a minimum for the psychological, emotional, educational, and economic gain for those people who have only recently been able to revel in the fruits of the struggle of their ancestors. Ironically, those four components that make up the foundation for living the American dream have yet to thrive in communities where the majority of people do not have these things instilled in them from birth. More importantly, the last wave of first generation college students is coming to a crash, developing and enjoying the benefits of a college education seems more elusive as we move on as a country.

Sadly, a lot of people who have entered the pearly white gates have forgotten from whence they came and are complacent with the feeling of "arriving." Unfortunately, for us the philosophies of our Eastern professors that we were not taught are being swept into sea as well. Namely, to become educated is to give back to ones people in the hopes that those seeking opportunities are able to meet one, reach one, reach one, teach one. In this strong nation, we have been taught that survival of the fittest is what feeds mouths and keeps bellies filled.

In other words, for those of us who were taught differently, this means shape up or ship out. Who cares if your neighborhood is decrepit, drug and disease infested, and lacking natural resources? Who cares if you don't do homework because you can't see the blackboard, you forgo breakfast because your teeth hurt, and you visit the hospital only in life or death situations because your family doesn't have medical care? What's left to do but to make a discernment about whether or not it is just to have a program that takes the latter into consideration and helps give those who have survived those travesties a chance for a better future? What this thinking does is pay no homage to the students who actually go through life described above, yet managed to use school as an outlet for their frustrations and saw college as an exit from that reality.

What's more, the people who have the power to switch and convolute legalese are the ones who hold the fate of whether or not people may or may not enroll at a prestigious college. It's a sad day when people who are not in the admissions office reading the trials, tribulations and academic successes of these students dictate the future and limit the upward mobility of certain groups by perpetuating the thought that, "if they go through these situations all the time, these people couldn't possibly be qualified enough to compete at a premiere or elite institution."

The bottom line.

I am not saying that white students don't have these needs. Yet, I am saying, historically, white students have been offered several opportunities just because they were white, and if they didn't avail themselves of those opportunities, there were still ample opportunity for them to pursue and make a decent life for themselves. The story is not the same for students of color. For some, this is the only opportunity afforded them to make a life that will benefit them and their families for generations to come.

No one makes it to college if they haven't worked hard. Secondly, what this legislation does is allow racist and racism the upper hand in decision-making at the risk of seeming discriminatory. In other words, if two college applicants apply to the same institution, and they are equal in all sense of the term, only one is a student of color and the other is white, the white one may get picked to avoid being sued for racial discrimination. Although the latter is a hypothetical situation and assumption...does the logic make sense? Furthermore, is the psychosis that makes us believe that we are heading toward a color blind society reinforcing the need to rid ourselves of programs that specifically help students of color. You interpret the situation!

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Roger Clegg, Ctr for Equal Opp
Date: 03-15-04 16:45

No one can dispute that some students have had more opportunities than others, and there is nothing wrong with having programs that acknowledge that fact and afford additional aid to those who are poor, or are the first in their families to attend college, or have attended failing school systems. But there are plenty of white and Asian students in that boat, and there are plenty of African American and Latino students who are not. You can't assume that a student who is white or Asian must be a child of privilege and living in a mansion, or that because a student is black he or she must have grown up in a ghetto with a high-school dropout mom and no father. The programs in The Chronicle's article have an across-the-board ban on ANY student of a particular color participating in a program, and that really cannot be justified, legally or as a matter of educational fairness.

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Chris Stapel
Date: 03-15-04 21:15

Please encourage your universities to boycott and and all events with Bradley University. The university continues to discriminate against American Indian students and foster hate among its community by continuing to use the nickname "Braves" even with recent added pressure. A university that consciously uses such a derogatory term surely does not wish that its minority students feel safe at school.

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Ben Rogers, Columbia
Date: 03-16-04 05:41

"Discrimination is wrong whether it is non-minority against minority or minority against non-minority. Everyone should be treated the same."

Yes discrimination is wrong, but we all know it exists. Yes everyone should be treated the same but again we know that is not reality. No about of preaching or wishing will make it disappear. Students of color who go through these targeted programs pay a price of being a minority in this society. Programs that target minority students are just acknowledging this and trying to balance the playing field.

The will to succeed

Author: Jeff Carney, Snow College
Date: 03-16-04 11:19

1. I'd like to point out that this would not even be an issue if there were unlimited resources to help all who need it. The central question, it seems to me, is this: given a limited pot of resources to help students who are not currently working at college level, whom shall we help first?

2. A question of fairness therefore arises.

2a. Students whose cultural and/or economic status make it possible for them to seek and pay for academic support should probably be asked to do so.

2b. Students whose cultural and/or economic status put them at an academic disadventage should be first on the list to receive academic support at no additional cost to themselves.

2c. It seems disingenuous to assume that a student's race should be the sole criterion for eligibility. Surely it is unfair to deny support to a white student from a poor, rural family who reads at a 5th grade level.

2d. Yet cultural history and realities of which we're all aware suggest that race should be A criterion for program eligibility, perhaps one criterion among many.

3a. What has not been suggested in this forum so far (I think) is what I consider the most important criterion of all: a student's will to succeed. I suggest it would be the gravest injustice of all to deny academic support to a student who is willing to try her hardest, while providing the same support to a student who misses classes and assignments without a legitimate excuse. I have no formal statistics to back up my assertion, but my experience suggests that a large number of college students are simply going through the motions of college without really wanting to be here.

3b. I am aware that many students come from cultures or family backgrounds that do not embrace the same sort of puritan work ethic on which college success has traditionally been predicated. I would therefore add as a condition to 3a that any academic support program with eligibility requirements must also contain some mechanism for ensuring that its participants receive a sincere initiation into what might be called "the academic culture." Let the first year serve as a kind of probationary period, at the end of which a student's behavior will be evaluated along with his grades.

Re: The will to succeed

Author: me
Date: 03-16-04 13:07

Jeff Carney, Snow College wrote:

"1. I'd like to point out that this would not even be an issue if there were unlimited resources to help all who need it. The central question, it seems to me, is this: given a limited pot of resources to help students who are not currently working at college level, whom shall we help first?"

I think you're making a dangerous assumption here that there is a single "pot" of resources, and we have to help people in some given order.

A more realistic description would include that there are many, many, limited pots, and that students who qualify for one pot may not qualify for others, and vice versa. With this in mind, there's no need for any single set of criteria -- a standard that is probably un-meet-able.

There are a lot of reasons for people to need academic support; if, for instance, you buy into John McWhorter's arguments about "black culture is hostile to academic success," then simply being a part of black culture will negatively impact someone. Similarly, being poor is something else that will negatively impact a student. Any other "ism" you want to include could fit into this framework. But why not have several separate programs : one, like Pell Grants, that specifically addresses income disparities, and another to enhance mentoring for women, and a third to deal with racial and cultural issues? Why assume that any one intervention program must intervene in everything?

carney almost got it right

Author: Jack Benoit, MIT
Date: 03-16-04 22:17

Jeff was doing oh so well until he hit items 3a and 3b. Then he went off into fantasy land. Let me take each in turn.

(3a) Just how in the world does someone evaluate a girl's "williness to try her hardest". Jeff suggests we could do this by taking attendance. Well, I have students who show up to every class and they still can't cut it. Wait. I know. We'll take her word for it!

Let's get real. Trying hard is absolutely worthless if, at the end of the day, you didn't succeed. Out in the real world effort counts for nothing. If you were hired as a plumber, you are expected to know how to fix leaky faucets. It doesn't matter if you spent 3 hours trying to fix the leak; if you didn't fix it, you get fired.

All students need to be evaluated under objective criteria. This feel-good-subjective-nonsense is what gave us all of these stupid programs in the first place. I guess Jeff wants to continue the status quo.

(3b) This item is ridiculous to the point of being asinine. We're supposed to hold their hands for a year? And then look at grades?

At my university you have to have a certain grade in a prerequisite course before you can take the follow-on course. Is Jeff suggesting we scrap this policy because of a student's culture?

Gosh, Jeff, have you ever thought of the fact that if Suzy Smith is flunking her courses, maybe she should drop out rather than be hand-held for a year. If she's flunking after the first quarter, what in the world makes you think she'll be successful in the second quarter?

Morever, there is the issue of fairness (and potential lawsuit). Suppose Suzy is allowed to maintain a 1.2 GPA for the first year while Tom Jones is not allowed to. (That's because Tom wasn't from the chosen culture of the month.) Consequently, Tom is dismissed for poor grades while Suzy is allowed to finish out the year. Do you think Tom would probably have a good chance of suing the university for discrimination?

Finally, why should the university (or any other funding agency) waste their money on Suzy if she can't cut it? According to Jeff, we should throw thousands of dollars down the drain while Suzy finishes out her probationary period. So who benefits from that?

Life is hard. Students need to learn this before they go out into the real world---and Jeff needs a return ticket from fantasy land...

Re: carney almost got it right

Author: Jeff Carney, Snow College
Date: 03-17-04 10:31

I think Jack missed the spirit of my remarks. I was not so much trying to add a loophole through which poor students can squeak through as I was trying to add an additional hurdle that students in special programs must jump over in order to keep receiving support.

Who would you rather spend your tax dollars on?

a. The C- student who ditches class to watch SpongeBob

or

b. The C- student who not only attends class and keeps up with the work, but also comes by your office for extra help, and generally demonstrates an sincere interest in getting ahead.

As for my final point (giving students a probationary period if their cultural background limits their understanding of what it means to work hard) this was not so much my fantasy of a perfect world as it was a grudging capitulation to those who believe in that world. I ran a tutoring center for 10 years and I've personally dealt with the sort of big-hearted program director who makes excuses for any kind of student failure you can name. Their arguments are well-rehearsed and difficult to dismiss. So I built in a compromise. I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if it went away.

Let me restate the heart of my position in plain English and see if you don't agree with me:

A student taking advantage of a special program should not be allowed to coast. He must show a persistent will to succeed in college. Failure to do so, irrespective of performance, means he is no longer eligible to participate in the program.

(Seat time might be one measure of a "will to succeed" but it certainly should not be the only measure.)

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Southeast Community College
Date: 03-17-04 16:11

When I was an undergraduate student in the 60's, there were no "special" programs for anyone. You attended classes, completed assignments, took volumes of lecture notes and passed exams or you were sent packing. All my professors had tenure and they weren't paid extra to have warm fuzzy feelings about their students. fewer students just meant fewer papers to grade and more time to moonlight. As a student, I learned to grow up fast and accept responsibility for my own actions or my future included minimum wage jobs after a hitch in Vietnam. I am a better person today because I learned to be the master of my own destiny.

Today the question is should colleges eliminate special programs designed to help minority students for fear thay may actually be viewed as discriminatory? Duh! What part of this sounds logical? Any program or process paid for with public funds (taxpayer's money) that eliminates whole groups of people based on their race is discriminatory. Forget that it might be good for the group favored by the program or process. People, get a grip! Discrimination and racism is a two edged sword. It is evil in any form-either for or against the politically correct flavor of the day. What you allow your government to do to others today may be used against you tomorrow.

Should special provisions be made for minorities to admit them to highly selective universities? No. They are either prepared to go, based on admissions tests, or they are not. If they aren't, who knows the reason. Maybe they didn't study in high school. Maybe their parents were poor. Maybe they were abused as children. Stuff happens and life isn't fair but we are way past the time when minorities were kept out of higher education just because they are minorities. Are we now prepared to reserve seats in universities for unprepared minorities knowing full well that failure is assured? What a waste of everyone's time and money.

We have a wonderful system of community colleges across this country that hold their doors open for all students seeking admission. And guess what? You don't have to leave home, your family, your job and spend lots of someone else's money. Its close, its convenient, its friendly and almost free (with financial aid, you can actually have a few bucks left over for car payments and rent). Be successful on a comfortable level first. Build on that success by going to an in-state institution. Successful there? Wonderful! Go to graduate school or law school at a highly selective university. You now have a track record of success and your chances of failure just went down to zero. Feel pretty confident, huh? You should because you didn't need a crutch to hold you up. You did it on your own. What a feeling!

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: me
Date: 03-18-04 11:09

Southeast Community College wrote:

"Should special provisions be made for minorities to admit them to highly selective universities? No. They are either prepared to go, based on admissions tests, or they are not."

Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it? Admission tests are a lousy way to know if students, minority or not, are prepared to attend college. Even the designers of the SAT admit that all it really does is predict students first-year grades; detractors don't believe it's even that useful. But almost everyone involved admits that it's not a very good predictor of generalized "academic success."

So why make an self-admittedly flawed instrument an idol of worship? And if we're going to worship SATs, why stop there? Navel-gazing has a long tradition going back to the Babylonians Why not start taking into account the student's blood type, and only admit Rh-positive students. And we have to get rid of those flighty Geminis, since obviously they don't have the persistance and patience to finish a four-year degree.

Alternatively, we could use other measures besides admission tests that indicate a student with academic promise. Indicators like performing exceptionally well in an ill-funded and badly equipped school, getting good grades despite a background that doesn't include support for higher education, and standing out relative to their peer group.

You ask : "Are we now prepared to reserve seats in universities for unprepared minorities knowing full well that failure is assured?"

How do you "know full well" that any given student will fail? I've had students manage to get their act together between October and December -- I don't "know full well that failure is assured" after giving the midterm, and I keep the gradebook.

Oh yeah, I forgot. That particular student is a Gemini....

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Just Curious
Date: 03-18-04 15:56

What is it that minorities want anyway? Do they want us to just give them everything all of the time? No one gave me, a white male from blue collar roots, anything. I don't owe minorities anything, and yet I'm the one who's excluded. I'm the one who suffers discrimination. I never did anything to them. Ever. So why should I have to suffer this unspeakable humiliation and dehumanization? They get everything. I get nothing. Does this fix anything? Does this redress anything? It just makes me feel resentful. I don't want to know their history. I don't want to read their literature. I don't want to be taught by their professors. I want it the way it used to be--clear cut and totally merit-based. I want to know where I, and so many others like me, stand. I don't want the rug pulled out from under me. I don't want to believe I have a fair shot and then be told that, in the interests of fairness, I'm being disqualified. I want it the way it used to be, which was what was best for everyone, not just minorities. They come to our country and they expect special privileges. And they expect me to give them up with a sympathetic smile. I'm getting angrier. I want to know what I ever did to them. Can someone, anyone, tell me? I dare anyone to tell me that I did any wrong to any minority anywhere at anytime. Never. I did nothing. I defy that anyone can tell me I did any wrong to minorities. I agree with the people on this colloquy who want to open these programs up to more better qualified whites. Enough already! I agree. We've given minorities enough. It's high time for us to take back what's rightfully ours. Get rid of the minorities who don't belong, that's all I'm saying, not all of them. Just the ones who don't deserve to be in college because I don't deserve to be paying for them to be in college. What's fair is fair. I refuse to live in an unfair world.

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Hoku, University of Hawaii
Date: 03-19-04 01:35

I just wanted to comment on that last part of your contribution ..

"No one makes it to college if they haven't worked hard. Secondly, what this legislation does is allow racist and racism the upper hand in decision-making at the risk of seeming discriminatory. In other words, if two college applicants apply to the same institution, and they are equal in all sense of the term, only one is a student of color and the other is white, the white one may get picked to avoid being sued for racial discrimination. Although the latter is a hypothetical situation and assumption...does the logic make sense?"

That particular situation is no longer just hypothetical, it just occurred this past year to a high school in Hawaii that gives preference to students of Hawaiian ancestry to the extent that law permits,.. after over 100 years of enduring a similar situation as students of African descent, Kamehameha Schools, a college prep high school who accepts only the brightest, most well-rounded children and funded by PRIVATE FUNDS from revenues from PRIVATE LANDS previously held by one of the last royal children after the Nation of Hawaii was illegally absorbed by the United States, was sued for not admitting a non-hawaiian student on basis of racism/discrimination.. in the face of this litigation, the school buckled it's 100 + year tradition and admitted the student before the court could make a ruling to set precedent for any further alterations to their admissions policies - and this is what will happen to other institutions if this policy is allowed to continue! If this can happen to a school that is funded by PRIVATE FUNDS.. then, imagine those who are supported by public funds?

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Hoku, University of Hawaii
Date: 03-19-04 02:24

You wrote "What is it that minorities want anyway? Do they want us to just give them everything all of the time? No one gave me, a white male from blue collar roots, anything. I don't owe minorities anything, and yet I'm the one who's excluded. I'm the one who suffers discrimination. I never did anything to them. Ever. So why should I have to suffer this unspeakable humiliation and dehumanization? They get everything. I get nothing."

Well, since you're curious, thought I'd answer a few of your questions.. Personally, no, no one can know if you did anything to any minority in the past.. but that is on a personal, individual level.. true, it isn't right that individuals should have to "pay" for the wrongs of an institution but sorry to say, we are individuals within the institution of America and America, as an institution, has done MANY wrongs to individuals of other institutions and this "minority-thing" is only part of the redress that these individuals are owed! Unfortunately, when people take it personal, the line between individual and institution becomes unclear.. let me tell you, cause I know.

And then you wrote, "Does this fix anything? Does this redress anything? It just makes me feel resentful. I don't want to know their history. I don't want to read their literature. I don't want to be taught by their professors."

Yes, these programs fix many things. It evens the playing ground for millions of "minority" individuals and although, they are now citizens of America, were never given the choice having been brought here by force of slavery or conquest of war. Maybe if you took the time to know their history and what brought them, or their ancestors here, you would know this and not take it personal.. since it was our great country that did this to them, so since we reap the benefits of their labor, land, assets.. we also bear the burden of their welfare.

And then you wrote "...We've given minorities enough. It's high time for us to take back what's rightfully ours. Get rid of the minorities who don't belong, that's all I'm saying, not all of them. Just the ones who don't deserve to be in college because I don't deserve to be paying for them to be in college. What's fair is fair. I refuse to live in an unfair world."

Well, what exactly have minorities gotten that wasn't a direct result of what was taken away from them? Rightfully yours? Who? You as an individual or you as an American institution? If it is the latter, then, maybe you should be reminded that America was never a race of people.. but a "melting pot" or rather, burning inferno consuming other races which lent America their culture, quizine, technology, and ideals from which was built a new culture that we now dubb as "American culture"..HA! What culture is truly and originally "American"? So, without these "minorities", America would NOT be here.. not to mention, the land that America uses as its defining boarders was gained in no fair manner. So who really deserves to be here? Who has an obligation to pay for who? and don't even start with the question of whats fair.. cause if the world were fair, America wouldn't be standing...and you sir, need a little history lesson with your reality check.

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Hoku, University of Hawaii
Date: 03-19-04 02:27

What we should do and what is really done are two different things, this is attested to through out the ages.. such a sad misrepresentation of Hawaii .

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Pained for Society
Date: 03-19-04 07:41

Just Curious, you are quite right to be angry and to question the abuse that you have suffered.

On their own logic, race-brokers insist that certain minority races (black, Hispanic, and "Native American") cannot compete on the merits because they necessarily lack your intelligence, discipline, and talent. Why they wallow in self-loathing and scorn for their own intelligence and worth is both completely understandable and beyond me.

On one hand, they're right. They do that for practical reasons. By and large, they can't compete with you, so they'd better cut you down and out of the way somehow. On the other hand, living and breathing one's own deeply-felt inferiority from minute to minute, desperately hoping to damage society enough to make a few cents of personal profit from it, is obscene and beneath contempt.

The tide is turning on them and their racism. However, they have vowed to destroy generations of people based on skin color, and are still doing their desperate best to further destroy the social and intellectual underpinnings of American society. Maybe our children will someday be free of this plague of race hatred and socially sanctioned aparthied. It is despicable.

Re: Help for all who need it.

Author: SMH, NC
Date: 03-19-04 08:29

With all due respect to my colleagues in academia, in a perfect world, there would be no need for such programs and initiatives. However, we live in a world in which certain individuals were not even recognized in a document of which this country holds near and dear to her heart as a complete individual. Further, native persons of this land are not recognized as the true and accurate "founding fathers." Our society is full of inequality, which stems from a myriad of situations, i.e. lack of access to healthcare, education, adequate housing and jobs. Any child who endures such conditions and makes it to the school house begins at a disadvantage and therefore spends the rest of his/her educational livelihood severely and profoundly behind.

Programs and resources for students of color not only provide financial assistance, but they provide a sense of connectedness and ownership. PWIs have not historically been hospitable environments for those whose pigmentation is different. Historically, PWIs were designed for the power elite, sons of those who not only possessed the financial baggage, but the political power as well. Programs and initiatives designed for students of color assist in preparing one mentally for the environment that was never designed for them in the first place.

Do I believe that all underprepared students with a drive and determination to succeed should have programs and services designated to assist them to succeed? Absolutely! However, until the playing field is equal, higher education has a responsibility to continue to provide support for individuals who are entering an environment that continues to interact with them based on the majority's cultural background. Is it an easy task? Certainly not! However, nothing worth fighting for ever has been.

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Dr. Karen Selby, Kalamazoo Col
Date: 03-19-04 12:03

The same. The wonder of the world is that we are not all the same. The complex reality of the academy is that it is our burden to use that diversity to give back to the world. I think that the diversification of the kinds of programs originally created to increase ethnic diversity is a wonderful opportunity to build strong alliances. Some of these programs are wonderful support models that will benefit a wide range of majority students. This will also lead to decreasing racial issolation. In all of this, the next generation of students entering our classrooms are often way ahead of this. An example from my campus is that while the Black Student Organization has kept the name and focus of their activities, they have included an ever widening circle of students in their fold. Embracing diversity is one of my goals as a professor, but I realize that this is part of a process.

Just curious

Author: USG English Chair
Date: 03-19-04 14:21

Dear Just Curious:

When exactly was it that everything was purely merit based?

When George W. Bush got into Yale?

When there were no black students at the University of Virginia?

When non-white people had separate restrooms and water fountains and sat at the back of the bus?

When Japanese-Americans were interned in California simply because of their heritage?

When Native Americans were driven from their land because European-Americans didn't believe that that land was "settled"?

When women couldn't vote?

The cards are stacked in your favor, sir. They always have been. Yes, a working-class background is a challenge, but you are not marked by it the way you are by gender and race. It is indeed true that race-based programs raise very complex questions of equity, and those questions need to be asked and considered and reconsidered as times change. But it's not just ignorant but simply, flatly wrong to believe that anything, EVER, has been a pure meritocracy. As far as any thinking person goes, your allusion to such a time flatly disqualifies anything else you might say.

Try a better argument.

one view from the ranks

Author: (Name removed at author's request)
Date: 03-19-04 17:43

Note: this is an anecdotal response, based on personal experience, and is therefore limited by definition. On the other hand, I think it is neither unrepresentative nor untrue.

I attended Michigan Law in the early 90s and participated in their Minority Affairs Program ("MAP") when it was first opened up to students of Asian descent. First, I have to say I found that the quality of my fellow students of color was impressive: they were smart, ambitious, committed to working hard, and self-aware. Many of them were from "disadvantaged" backgrounds, but not one of them was willing to concede that this meant they were unable to compete in the classroom, in moot court, or in all the other competitive situations that law school offers. And they were tough - tougher than I was, I think, for all my intellectual curiosity and interest - in that they were willing to work harder than I'd considered to get all the "tools in their toolbox" lined up, honed, and ready to wield.

Did they feel stigmatized? Well, some claimed they did. I felt at times that when people asked me what I was doing in the MAP program, they often asked it with a bit of a sneer. But in my case, to the extent I can analyze it, I think the intent behind the question was "what are you, typical smart overachieving Asian American that you are, doing there?" I don't believe that is how the question might have appeared to a Black or Latino student. But yeah, the stigma may have been there; and it was far likely more stinging for them than it was for me. And yet, we attended the program with even greater drive to conquer law school - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, even for in such a pleasant community as is Michigan Law School - and you know, the stigma was pretty much negligible in comparison to the glow of succeeding in those horrible first year courses. In my view, the stigma was short lived; but as the songwriter wrote, the JD lingers on.

The students of color at Michigan Law in the MAP program were, for the most part, drawn from disparate backgrounds, some with financial issues, others with educational challenges that were no fault, as it were, of their own. I believe almost every one completed the 3 years of law school - surely a sign of some intellectual competence - and all have been enriched by the process. Their children may well not require the kind of "extra" nurturing the program offered. But isn't that the point? No one expects MAP to stay on the map forever. But for my classmates, it served its purpose. And those who were not included - again, for the most part, in my opinion, those who cried out loudest against it - have also done just fine.

Why are we fighting over a worthy program? If Michigan Law can open the program up to Asian Americans, it can certainly open it up to economically disadvantaged White students. I would be quite happy to see economic factors take a significant place, and to have race become only one factor among others that can hold students back. But to say it is just a wasteful "privilege" is to miss the point indeed. It is a helpful hand at a very needed time. It did not impede anyone who had been admitted from succeeding. And it contributed to a vital success story for a key segment of my law school class. My now-colleagues of color should be proud of their achievements. And so should my colleagues who came in knowing how to play the game - and left as well off as those who got the assist.

Questions

Author: Southeast Community College
Date: 03-22-04 09:45

In understanding the issues that have been raised in this forum, I believe the following questions are relevant:

1. What is the role of public higher education in this country? Is it educating and training the next generation for the workforce or is it promoting a specific social agenda?

2. If higher education has a role in promoting a social agenda, whose agenda should it be?

3. If the majority of faculty (some estimates are as high as 90%) are liberal, would it not follow that an institution's agenda would not represent a large portion of the population (assuming the country is evenly split between liberal and conservative camps, re: the 2000 presidential election). Should conservatives, then, continue to support American higher education when their tax dollars are being used to promote a leftist agenda they do not support?

4. Who will be the brave soul that oneday stands up and says publically, "The playing field is now level and there is no further need for affirmative action, special programs promoting a critical mass of (pick your own minority), or any other program that discriminates against one race in favor of another." Who will do that? Who gets to decide that enough has been gained by one race and lost by another? Surely no one that expects to be elected to public office. Those that profit from promoting racial unrest will never let that happen so we find ourselves with a problem that has no solution, ever.

Re: Questions

Author: (Name removed at author's request)
Date: 03-22-04 12:47

Some possible responses:

(1) and (2) Isn't it interesting, if not peculiar, that you set into opposition "education and training" and "social" concerns? Now, you frame the latter as a "specific social agenda," and therefore polarize the debate by implying that it's a "liberal" agenda - by which I suppose you mean something like "dealing with supposed social issues like (race-based) inequality and the like," and by which I suppose you also imply "and meddling in issues that universities shouldn't be overtly concerned with rectifying." (Do let me know if I am incorrect here.) But why would you assume universities are perforce constrained to address one and not the other?

Isn't part of "education" providing instruction to various members of our community and in larger context, the great big world in which educational communities operate and which they ultimately serve? Isn't part of "training" equipping students to function in society? Isn't society, at least in the U.S., by definition diverse (and of course, increasingly so)? And this is a "social agenda," is it not?

Even the "workforce" - even in the multinational workforce, in which I have spent 10+ years - is increasingly "diverse." What's so liberal about recognizing, and dealing with - and equipping students to deal with - that? Wouldn't even a "conservative" social agenda, one that was concerned with the workforce, seek to create fully integrated members of the workforce among American students, who will we all hope become the workers and leaders of our companies? I would think we would want to train ALL American students, of whatever race, national origin, etc., to be equipped to compete in an international playing field - corporate or nonprofit or otherwise. This is hardly a "liberal" agenda. Indeed, when we sit around and moan about "outsourcing" of jobs to highly educated students in English-language countries, maybe we could think about the "liberal" agenda of spending more resources on our students as a forward thinking solution to a longterm concern. This is hardly, in any rational view, liberal. It is, however, informed.

(3) Your question, as presented, might make sense - if faculty did, indeed, act as preachers and not teachers, speaking from dogmatic and doctinaire positions, and spreading the gospel of their "liberal" "agendas" from on high. But that doesn't quite seem to be the case.

First, most professors I've encountered seem much more concerned with getting students to read, think, analyze, and argue - the usual academic wish list, actually - than to "see the light," liberal or otherwise. Almost every liberal arts college usually articulates its mission as "teaching students to think for themselves." I know that the best classmates of mine, in college, law school, and graduate school, range across the spectrum of political views; but they can all argue and defend their positions. They are mostly the products, admittedly, of fine schools, many of which you would no doubt characterize as "liberal." But not one has complained about "tax dollars" being spent poorly. Perhaps that is because they feel they were truly educated? (Of course, the students in the sciences don't much seem to fuss with such issues. They seem to think they have the corner on the "truth" anyway. No, just kidding.)

Further, wouldn't the "proselytizing" of faculty, if at all effective, end up "corrupting" students and turning them all into bleeding hearts? At my oh-so-elite New England school, quite the opposite situation seemed to be the status quo: conservative-ish students (Dad banker, mom lawyer) would take many, many courses which exposed them to quasi liberal ideas, say, the New Deal, labor economics, etc. - and would march right into their Wall Street jobs without turning a hair. NOT a public institution, right, so no tax $$ spent. Yet not a parent seemed all too concerned about their tuition fees being wasted. Maybe it was the quality of the school? Yes, but then maybe we should spend more, rather than less, money on education - and worry about quality, as defined by how analytically sound and rationally capable students are (admittedly, a tough standard to pin down, but you know, I think we "know it when we see it"), rather than about whether or not an "agenda" is being perpetuated. Again, the very diversity in political points of view in this country, which you cite in your question, challenges the question of whether or not a certain agenda is being promoted and, as you imply, pushed upon its opponents. There just isn't much evidence of that, in my view.

Oh yes, as to certain people who raise an outcry against the liberal oppressors, I would like to ask a question: who ultimately supports nonprofit education? Parents and alumni are among the most significant providers of incoming funds. At my undergrad school, many, many of the alumni self identify as "somewhat conservative" (all white, all male, at least until the mid 1970s). Are they withholding funds? Not to date. I was a professional fundraiser for several years, and met with many of these delightful, educated, thoughtful gentlemen. They LOVED the direction of the school; loved its social diversity, loved its educational balance, loved its mix of color and class. And do you know what they supported almost to a man? Financial aid, and a kind of aid that took economic status, social origin (first generation to attend college, for e.g.), and yes, race into account. Yet these are the supporters of American higher education. What do you think might account for that?

(4) Well, considering how many people of color presently hold higher office, you are right: it's unlikely that those who hold political positions will ever speak honestly and, equally importantly, with "insider" knowledge on the race issue. But here's a thought: why not let educators, who after all are in the business of education, have some say on whether the educational system works as it does?

If you are anywhere except in education - a corporate officer, for instance - you probably believe that those who run the show should get to have quite a lot of say in how the show is run. (Tyco and Enron notwithstanding!) With, of course, the proviso that accountability matters. And in the case of public education, accountability does mean people having some degree of say, with their tax dollars. But perhaps those who spend tax dollars should try to address real problems, like how to fix secondary education so that students are actually prepared for university level work? When you have said something that might usefully address problems of inequity at earlier educational levels, perhaps you will get some responsiveness on the part of those who advocate race/economic-based solutions to educational disparities. Certainly, I will be interested in hearing more of what you have to say.

Re: Just curious

Author: Bloom
Date: 03-22-04 12:48

Dear USG Chair,

You make some good points (against a very poor post, I might add), but I wonder why you failed to mention instances of unfairness which were directed against those without differing pigmentation - Irish, Italians, Jews, Catholics. Our great country has a history of discrimination against all sorts. But I guess this didn't "leave a mark" b/c they can't be readily identified as members of the formerly dispossessed on the street?

And is it so true that a working class background doesn't mark one for life, in the sense that it instills certain expectations, limitations, etc.? I would argue that it does, in the same way that one is marked if he/she is from a minority family with a history of poor education, a lack of financial resources, a lack of successful role models, etc.

And as far as the "deck is stacked in your favor"...perhaps, sir, the deck was stacked in YOUR favor if you came of age in the 50s, 60s or 70s, but for those of us who came of age in the 90s and later, trust me when I say it isn't. This generation's personal experiences with the inequities of AA preferences informs our less positive opinion. You're essentially asking me, and my children, to sacrifice our careers and financial futures to assuage the guilt of the generations who benefited from past inequities. Rest assured that, however well that might fit in with your historical perspectives, we will not go along with this plan.

Bloom

Author: USG English Chair
Date: 03-22-04 16:38

Dear Bloom:

Thanks for your post.

First of all, I "came of age" in the 80s: I went to college from 1981-1985, and to graduate school from 1985-1994, when I received my Ph.D. I've spent the intervening years--and a few beforehand--both being on the academic job market and doing a good deal of hiring, both for faculty and administrators, as well as witnessing all sorts of discrimination in hiring, personnel decisions, and other aspects of professional life (all as a middle-class white male, btw). Thus, I have a great deal of experience dealing with AA issues and have a reasonably good perspective on them. Also, when I went to college and grad school, it was really a high point for naked quotas, so I imagine that I have been as directly put at risk by such things as anyone.

As for a working-class background, my wife is from an Irish-German Catholic farm family in Iowa, the 6th of 10 children. Her father finished 8th grade, and her mother graduated from high school. In that family there is an MD, a Ph.D., an M.F.A., multiple other graduate degrees, and some further education still ongoing (her youngest brother is a Ph.D. candidate). Yes, working-class backgrounds do mark people with aspirations, limitations, and so on, and very much in the same way as minority people with the same or analogous circumstances are marked. However, if you're white, you're still white; women don't clutch their purses to themselves when you walk by, people don't just assume you're the janitor or the maid, and cops don't pull you over for "driving black."

I am sure you'd say to African-American students who claim that they are faced with significant disadvantages, "just work harder." They might return the same comment to you and your children. Think about it this way: even if an institution (such as the University of Georgia, where I do NOT teach) had a quota that restricted a few non-minority students from getting into the first-year class, the easiest way not to be among those is to get better grades and test scores and do more interesting stuff in extracurriculars, etc.

"Merit" is a very complex phenomenon. There are a lot of ways to define it, and the ways that exclude minority--or, for that matter, majority, working-class--people may in fact not be the most valid. I can tell you from teaching college English for 17 years now that, for instance, SAT verbal scores don't really mean a lot, nor are HS gpas all that reliable. Many times, hungrier students with less apparent preparation or academic skill turn out to be a lot more interesting and productive students than some with far glossier credentials. So "merit," far from being an objective, transparent, easily understood phenomenon, is in fact a very complex and variable thing that depends on a whole array of elements, many of which are difficult to impossible to measure though you'll probably know them when you see them.

As for you and your children paying for history: we're always already paying for history and alas, we can't divorce ourselves from it. It's not at all about assuaging my guilt or for that matter anyone else's--I don't have any either. I'm sorry that black people were enslaved, but I'm not responsble for that. I am, however, responsible, as a citizen of a civil society that claims--more in the breach than the observance, unfortunately--to provide liberty, justice, and opportunity for all. When, for instance, all schoolchildren have access to equal resources, I'll be happy. Meanwhile, programs that ASSIST disadvantaged people--minorities and others who are disadvantaged for whatever reason, and this would definitely include working-class people, non-traditional students, whomever--have my full support.

Moreover, our country's prosperity is not a zero-sum game; in fact, it's essentially unlimited, as long as everyone has fair opportunity to join in its pursuit. One of the things a lot of people--both on the right and on the left--do is toss out buckets of red herrings, and this is one of them. For instance, the idea that only a degree from an Ivy college will open the doors is obviously false, and so for the maybe 500 or 1000 first-year students who are admitted for some reason other than scores, grades, and extracurriculars are not really consuming an irreplaceable or unique resource. (The same could be said about the really great state schools like Virginia, UNC, Michigan, etc.) One seat at Harvard may change hands, but there are plenty of other great places for people to go that will provide similar kinds of opportunities for excellence.

Finally, the funny thing about privilege is that it's invisible to those who possess it: to them, it's just "the way things are." When one calls attention to the fact that it IS privilege--which is to say, it's not something that is equally available to all--suddenly it turns into some huge scandal and disadvantage. So, if you take for granted that every opportunity should be yours, and suddenly one is given to someone else, it looks unfair. But to the person who gets the opportunity, who may have come from someplace where such things were NOT taken for granted, it's a huge and important step. What we need to do is find a place where such people can meet in the middle with the maximimum amount of justice for all. Naive epistemologies of merit and tenuous grievance at the loss of privilege, coupled with selfish obsession for every inch of ground ostensibly (but almost certainly not really) lost to providing opportunity for others isn't going to do it.

question to Bloom

Author: (Name removed at author's request)
Date: 03-22-04 16:58

Just 3 (friendly) questions:

(i) So, if admissions, financial aid, and so on were offered on the basis of socioeconomic status, with the benefit heavily weighted toward those on the lower end of the spectrum, would you be less averse to "preferential" policies? What if the results were substantially similar to those achieved today (not wholly improbable, as race and class seem to track pretty well in the U.S.). What if we could fine tune the system so socioeconomic status was always the defining factor? Would this affect your view?

(ii) Let's imagine a world where there is no "preference" at all. Scores and grades rule everything (ok, much of the rest of the world today!). What if we found the top institutions, particularly those strong in math/sciences (MIT, CalTech, etc.) innundated with the "best" applicants - 99% of whom were self-designated Asian (as in, Asian American, of Asian origin, or actually from an Asian country). Would that be ok? What if some were Asian and the rest were foreign students (i.e., here on a student visa). Would that be fine with you? Do you think the next generation would care (as you say your generation does - although what I believe you mean is "those in my generation who are similarly situated to me")?

(iii) What if we could prove, definitively, that overall (I want to underscore that word, but don't know how) Caucasians were as a whole unaffected by "preferential" policies and people of color were benefited by them? (This, of course, would not counter any specific experience; but inequity on a one-on-one basis isn't the point; it's the well being of a group that we're counting here.) Would you find this helpful or persuasive in any way, or is the experience of specific people who argue they have been affected more relevant than the context?

I hope you find these questions worth considering...

For all in the forum, I have wanted to mention that The Shape of The River, by Bowen and Bok, is possibly the best analysis of hard data on race in admissions policies to date.

Re: Questions

Author: Bloom
Date: 03-23-04 00:12

Southeast Community College dolt asks:

"4. Who will be the brave soul that oneday stands up and says publically, "The playing field is now level and there is no further need for affirmative action, special programs promoting a critical mass of (pick your own minority), or any other program that discriminates against one race in favor of another." Who will do that? Who gets to decide that enough has been gained by one race and lost by another? Surely no one that expects to be elected to public office. Those that profit from promoting racial unrest will never let that happen so we find ourselves with a problem that has no solution, ever."

Why, the answer to question 4 is plainly obvious: the Marys McGowan and McGory--queens of spitrag, knee-jerk, no-thinkin', I-ain't-read-nuthin'-cause-I-seen-it-all colloquy posts!

Mar-EEs! Mar-EEs! Mar-EEs! McMcMcMcMcMcMcGAAAWWW!

Re: question to Bloom

Author: Bloom
Date: 03-23-04 09:55

(Name removed at original author's request),

In response to your questions:

(1) I have no objections to preferences based on economic status; it's indisputable that low economic status conveys disadvantages which unfortunately make qualified students appear less so. Just because non-causasians would likely benefit more from such programs doesn't trouble me in the slightest.

(2) As I said, I'm not averse to preferences, only to preferences based on pigment. But if the scenario you describe were to happen even with economic-based preferences, then I wouldn't see it as a problem. It would be unfortunate, of course, but would be a consequence of the emphasis that Asians put on science/math vis-a-vis the other ethnicities.

(3) I think you can prove just about anything you want with statistics - anybody here get the "average" Bush tax cut? But society is a collection of individual experiences, and yes they matter.

Thank you for the intelligent questions.

Re: Bloom

Author: Bloom
Date: 03-23-04 10:26

USG Chair,

I understand your arguments and you provide a compelling airing of them. You sum it up nicely: "What we need to do is find a place where such people can meet in the middle with the maximimum amount of justice for all."

We can objectively measure economic status, and preferences on that basis will disproportionately assist those who have been disproportionately disadvantaged by past discrimination. And it appears fair and impartial on its face, which is important if we want American society to move forward with integration, rather than backwards into race identification.

I believe the difference between your position and mine, if I may be bold and presumptuous, is not in the values or principles underlying them, but rather in how we apply these to our understanding of human nature. Your admirable tendency to accept inequities for the betterment of society is wonderful, but rare. Human nature IS brutal, petty and selfish at its core, which is why we have all manner of social institutions to control it. Racial AA programs do introduce inequities (even though I agree they are surmountable), and I'm convinced that in the end the reaction to these inequities will outweigh any possible benefit.

Oh, and the other "Bloom" who mocked the Community College poster, that's not me, lest anyone be confused.

Re: Bloom

Author: USG English Chair
Date: 03-23-04 10:57

Bloom,

Good points. I really don't have a problem with applying "economic" affirmative action rather than race-based affirmative action. (I think this was implied, though pretty obliquely, in my earlier, much longer, post.) For example, at UVa, where I went to grad school, there were regional quotas (don't know if they still do that, but I hope they do), which provided access, e.g., to students from the southwestern (which is to say, Appalachian) part of Virginia. These students were in fact mostly white, and they too added "diversity" of a very helpful kind to the student body at the University.

You're right, too, about the selfish nature of humanity. These regional quotas raised the ire of the (suburban, upper-middle-class, white) constituencies of Northern Virginia (Fairfax County, et al.), and they actively campaigned against them on precisely the same grounds that some here have campaigned against racial preferences--never mind that UVa was the flagship public university of the state (which, fortunately, is blessed with a lot of good public universities, though not for long if the government of the so-called "commonwealth" keeps it up--they'll either cease being good or cease being public, or in a worst case, both), and thus ostensibly was to serve the entire state. The spectre of "merit" raised its head repeatedly, and gave ammunition (though, I would argue, fundamentally flawed) ammunition to the argument that the fact that Appalachian Virginians had lower test scores than students from NoVa indicated that those Northern Virginians deserved admission in a way that the others did not.

So, I think you'd find that a class/economic based alternative (which we actually already have in certain ways, including Pell Grants and so on) would also meet with resistance. It may be more defensible on some philosophical level, and also be a good (maybe even the best) compromise, but still, conservatives will shout "class warfare" and those people on the margins who would be excluded (including all those upper-middle-class suburban white kids who are reasonably but not exceptionally talented academically) will still yell and holler, sue, and complain because they'll find a way to make an argument that distributive justice in this instance discriminates agains them.

Too bad.

Sociologist's fallacy

Author: me
Date: 03-23-04 11:30

Bloom wrote:

"We can objectively measure economic status, and preferences on that basis will disproportionately assist those who have been disproportionately disadvantaged by past discrimination. And it appears fair and impartial on its face, which is important if we want American society to move forward with integration, rather than backwards into race identification."

I'm glad that we seem to agree that there are at least some sorts of background disadvantages that can be alleviated by remedial intervention. However, I fear that your statement "we can objectively measure economic status" is both untrue -- is a house worth $60,000 in Milwaukee more or less status-laden than a house worth $160,000 in Oakland, CA? -- and potentially biasing. It's a common sociologist's fallacy to assume that whatever can't be measured doesn't exist.

In particular, just because we can't measure "Hispanic-ness" or "black-ness" doesn't meant that there aren't cultural influences coming from those cultures that can create background disadvantages (nor does it mean that there are, but there are a lot of researchers who claim to have found such influences, and I'll defer to the primary literature on the subject). Is it appropriate to offer remedial intervention for those influences as well?

Re: Questions

Author: me
Date: 03-23-04 11:41

Southeast Community College wrote:

"4. Who will be the brave soul that oneday stands up and says publically, "The playing field is now level and there is no further need for affirmative action, special programs promoting a critical mass of (pick your own minority), or any other program that discriminates against one race in favor of another." Who will do that? Who gets to decide that enough has been gained by one race and lost by another?"

To some extent, I believe the data itself will stand up and say publically "the playing field is now level." I assume from the tone of your posts that you would be willing to be "the brave soul," and that you are, in fact, arguing that there's no need for affirmative action. The very fact that this discussion is happening on a major forum such as The Chronicle suggests that you're not a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

The big question is whether the facts support your stance.

Let's look at the numbers. Do minorities score as well on standardized tests as Caucasians? Do minorities get into college with the same rates as Caucasians? Do minorities graduate from college with the same rates as Caucasians? Until the answers to these questions are yes, yes, and yes, then the playing field is not level and there is still a problem to be addressed.

Re: Questions

Author: Bloom
Date: 03-23-04 12:37

Dear Me, When you say "minorities," I do hope you're not referring to pigment-based minorities because that makes me uncomfortable, as I've stated earlier, and we all know that discrimination based on pigmentation, while it yielded enormous, benefits for a non-pigmented majority for centuries in our country, is simply wrong, and that any attempts to redress or even find a "middle ground" with reference to pigmentation just makes everybody mad. Though centuries of legislation against pigmented minorities (e.g., non-citizenship laws, immigration limits, alien land law acts, anti-miscegenation laws, Jim Crowism, separate but "equal," reneging on the Bracero program, reneging on virtually every treaty we've ever signed with Native tribes, relocation camps, redistricting laws favoring non-pigmented voters, slavery, making it illegal for an Asian in America to testify against a non-pigmented person in a court of law, Angel Island detention center, English only, no bilingual ed.--unless of course the other linguas are the lyrical French and Italian, for which we'll create submersion schools--moveable Reservations, to name just a handful of the more well known legislation enacted against the pigmented a long, long time ago) created a deep, dark hole out of which a few pigmented minorities are now beginning to emerge, we can safely assume that because we can SEE a few minorities on campus, in the corporate offices, in, god forbid, our very neighborhoods, then all is even. We MUST forget the past because as our dear MARYS have implored us to remember, the past means NOTHING. It is dead. There can be no carry over, no contingencies, no ramifications that can last more than a single generation. It's all even now. Please, no more references to pigmented minorities. They've gotten enough attention, as the colloquy article suggests. It's time to institute affirmative action for the non-pigmented, impoverished majority. Are we all so blinded by pigment that we can't just divorce it from its historical contexts and say "No more pigment-based discrimination!"

Oh, by the way, we're all Bloom.

Re: question to Bloom

Author: Southeast Community College
Date: 03-23-04 14:35

I would also like to recommend a book that presents an African-American male's analysis of the problems associated with preferential programs for minorities. For a more "fair-and-balanced" analysis, read "Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America" by John McWhorter.

Re: Southeast juco sage

Author: Bloom
Date: 03-23-04 15:58

Southeast Community College dolt recommends:

"I would also like to recommend a book that presents an African-American male's analysis of the problems associated with preferential programs for minorities. For a more "fair-and-balanced" analysis, read "Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America" by John McWhorter"

Hear, hear, and leave us not neglect Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Clarence Thomas, Booker T. Washington's Atlanta Exposition address, "Danny Santiago," the "anonymous" author of "The Education of Little Tree," Richard Rodriguez, Timothy Liu, Linda Chavez...

Boot-strap stories one and all about those who made it despite pigmentation (except for the notorious Santiago and the klansman who wrote "Little Tree"--both of the non-pigmented majorities), emerged wounded, resentful, but successful and happy to be so, to a degree, and then attempted to kick the door shut behind them, exhorting other pigmented minorities who wish success to do so quietly, while offering another undercurrent: "You can't do only as well as the non-pigmented to be accepted by them; you must do better and then thank them to the high heavens for allowiing you an opportunity without which you might never have proven your worth" (worth being a standard set by the non-pigmented majority). "Disassociate from any behavior deemed too ethnic/racialized and spend your life disavowing pigmentation and its discomforting history--if you want to be accepted."

Yes, yes. McWhorter's story. Who'd have thunk Olaudah Equiano could have come roaring back after two hundred years so little changed?

Praise the Marys McGowan and McGory, McWhorter and Mel Gibson's dad.

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: (Name removed at author's request)
Date: 03-23-04 16:10

Dear original-Bloom-to-whom-I-posted-my-inquiries,

Thank you for taking the time to answer so thoughtfully. I think I can see more clearly the contours of your thoughts.

Briefly, I just want to add that I am not, by any means, disparaging the utility and interest value of "anecdote" and individual experience. But I do think they shouldn't be drawn into a debate as evidence that proves anything definitively. I have plenty of stories drawn from both sides of the coin - as I am sure we all do - but which of those stand representative of a greater experience, or demonstrate indisputably some greater point, or "make the case"? I'd be loathe to let even the apparent weight of many stories do the work of telling us the benefits and burdens of social policies in the final analysis.

And yes, I am a (social) utilitarian, in the broadest sense of the word. How did you know?!

A propos, that is why I recommend the Bowen/Bok book - it brings a wealth of empirical evidence and analysis to bear on the question, and demonstrates very carefully and thoroughly what the consequences of race-based admissions policies has been to date. Priceless.

This is also why I take exception to McWhorter's book, as well as to similarly well told stories that claim to be "fair and balanced" but are, in the end, stories that run "I've seen it, heard it, been there, done that, so what I conclude must be true." This is true on both sides of the coin, too - Patricia Williams's "Alchemy of Race and Rights" fails utterly on the same score. Why not focus on the data, as a whole generation of policy implementation is now available? Where is the rebuttal to Bok/Bowen that's empirically based?

Dear Southeast Community College (Re post of 3/17/04),

I am not quite clear what role "personal responsibility" has to play in your critique. "Master of your own destiny" at what level? Getting good scores, staying in college, moving into the working world? Could you please clarify?

Also, how do you feel about "legacy" admissions?

Re: Southeast juco sage

Author: (Name removed at author's request)
Date: 03-23-04 16:21

Dear Bloom II (only chronologically, I am sure),

Would you mind terribly if we appended to your name for ease of discussion? I am so disappointed you didn't say, "we are all (Name removed at original author's request)s now" - I gues there's something to be said for having an impossible to spell moniker (although if my thesis advisor finds me here, I may be rethinking that one); but please, couldn't you be, say, Molly and have our earlier poster be Leopold?

In any case, although I cross-posted with you, I have to say again, just for my own satisfaction, that while Steele and McWhorter et al. are disturbing, there's an equally (to me) annoying literature on the "other side" that runs along the lines of "gee, I was a person of color and went to x school and worked at AmEx (say) and hit the ceiling and left because everyone kept expecting so much of me" blah blah. Or the same, but ending "and I have to be 10x better to succeed, because everyone knows people expect less of people of my race." Both are bogus, in my view. Or at least, yeah, it may have happened to you that way - but what, precisely, does it illustrate about the world?

Anyway, I'm just adding to my earlier rambling re anecdote and its place in the debate.

PS I don't think Liu's book is exactly on par with those you cite. He is a bit more nuanced about his conflicts, no?

Re: We are all (Name removed at original author's request)

Author: Bloom
Date: 03-23-04 17:15

"PS I don't think Liu's book is exactly on par with those you cite. He is a bit more nuanced about his conflicts, no?"

No. But for accession's sake, I'll retract and offer in his stead Jade Snow Wong, Betty Lee Sung, Monica Sone, David Mura's father, and Amy Tan.

As a non-pigmented majority member, "it" did not happen to me "that way." How did "it" "happen" to you and of what might "that" be illustrative? Please, no fence sitting or offering "middle ground" from afar, if only for the sake of our Marys and juco dude.

Re: Questions

Author: me
Date: 03-23-04 18:36

Bloom wrote:

"Dear Me, When you say "minorities," I do hope you're not referring to pigment-based minorities because that makes me uncomfortable, as I've stated earlier, and we all know that discrimination based on pigmentation, while it yielded enormous, benefits for a non-pigmented majority for centuries in our country, is simply wrong, and that any attempts to redress or even find a "middle ground" with reference to pigmentation just makes everybody mad. Though centuries of legislation against pigmented minorities (e.g., non-citizenship laws, immigration limits, alien land law acts, anti-miscegenation laws, Jim Crowism, separate but "equal," reneging on the Bracero program, reneging on virtually every treaty we've ever signed with Native tribes, relocation camps, redistricting laws favoring non-pigmented voters, slavery, making it illegal for an Asian in America to testify against a non-pigmented person in a court of law, Angel Island detention center, English only, no bilingual ed.--unless of course the other linguas are the lyrical French and Italian, for which we'll create submersion schools--moveable Reservations, to name just a handful of the more well known legislation enacted against the pigmented a long, long time ago) created a deep, dark hole out of which a few pigmented minorities are now beginning to emerge, we can safely assume that because we can SEE a few minorities on campus, in the corporate offices, in, god forbid, our very neighborhoods, then all is even."

Wow. All one sentence. One tremendous, misguided, resentful, and ultimately incoherent sentence. Your artistry astounds; how long did you have to work on it?

I'm sorry. Are you suggesting that reparations for past injustices are, or are not, appropriate?

And are you suggesting that minority college graduation rates are, or are not, an appropriate way to measure if the past injustices are being remedied?

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: Bloom I
Date: 03-23-04 19:15

Dear One-and-only-(Name removed at original author's request),

I haven't read the Bowen/Bok book, only reviews of it, and from those I doubt that I'd find it convincing (you must have surmised as much from my response to your questions). I think our differences stem from our concept of the essential mission of higher education - is it to produce a socially equitable distribution of advanced degrees, or is it to afford individual students, in the fairest way possible, the most robust opportunity for success? Again, my preference for individuals over groups emerges.

And a point of clarification: I don't think individual experiences necessarily prove the merit or lack thereof of either position. Rather, cumulative experiences of inequities have a bearing on race relations: if certain demographics feel that higher education opportunities are closed to them to benefit other groups because either (1) we need to atone for past discrimination or (2) society (or - gasp - they themselves) benefit from a racially balanced student body, what do you think the long-term effects of this will be?

- Bloom I

Re: Woe is me

Author: Bloom I and II....
Date: 03-24-04 11:08

Oh my, oh Me, As I stated in an earlier post,

"(2) As I said, I'm not averse to preferences, only to preferences based on pigment."

Is this not as clear, as transparent, as the other arguments on this colloquy favoring the throwback days of non-pigmentation privilege (i.e., merit-based-because-no-one's-around-to-say-otherwise neutrality)? No pigment-based discrimination...or, er, any other kind that throws my bearing out of its center.

Re: (Name removed at author's request), etc.

Author: (Name removed at author's request)
Date: 03-24-04 16:20

Dude, if you were in South India you'd probably realize how true that is - (Name removed at author's request) is about as common as "Smith" or "Jones," although usually spelled with an h ("(Name removed at author's request)," as all the nice folks in India to whom our telecom jobs have been outsourced will try helpfully to spell it when speaking with me). Aren't you glad to know that, though?!

Ok, I like your offer on the Asian writers list (if you promise not to use the incredibly annoying derogatory terms that tend to get appended, like "banana" and so on; not, of course, that I am suggesting that you would). Done.

Uh, sorry about the vague "it" and "that." I was taking a swipe, wholly in passing and probably only to myself (not recommended practice on a forum, right), at the kind of trite (again, in my view) anecdotal writing that seems to pass for "scrutiny" on both sides of the debate. On the writings I had in mind - Patricia Williams, that Black woman who was a hugely successful managing director at AmEx and left when she felt she just had to work too hard to "prove" a Black person could be a top leader there (sorry, I should really google her name), etc. - there is a narrative about how hard it is to be a person of color, how frustrating to have to prove oneself seemingly over and over again, how uniquely vulnerable a successful person of color feels (usually in the elite realms of academia, politics, corporate powers, and so on), and other similar concerns.

When I say "that was not my experience" - well, when I worked in the corporate world, and now in my academic stint, it wasn't, isn't, and I don't think will likely be the case. I was actually treated pretty well at the bank and law firms at which I worked. I thought my colleagues were very interested in nurturing and supporting those of us who were of color - in part because there was a strong awareness that we were very poorly represented. I think we were judged fairly; and I think these places were vested in seeing us succeed (in part because they'd invested in our success, as much as any others'). In sum, as a whole, in these "white shoe" organizations. I have perceived an overall trend in the active hiring of people of color, and in a slightly less energetic (or at least focused) attempt at retaining us. That's why I don't care for the literature of the defensive, defiant, challenging, or admonitory writers who complain about the "Establishment": I think it's old hat.

Maybe this is way too optimistic; in any case, my more basic point - and I do have one (I think) - is that it tends to be pretty much entirely anecdotal. In other words, and as I have said, it is NOT "illustrative," nor should it be considered illustrative when it's recounted by writers of either conservative or liberal persuasion! It might be useful to hear, as a depiction of "one view from the ranks" (as I chose to call my earlier post). But demonstrable proof of the veracity or persuasiveness of an argument? I should hope not.

You know, this reminds me of arguing "Gibson's depiction of the 'passion' is certainly not going to stand, in my mind, as illustrating, let alone illuminating, much about Christianity." Ok, maybe that's overstatment - it depicts one believer's vision of one set of events, in which it now appears quite a few other believers share (just judging from some viewer response). But is this something on which we'd want to base our own response to Christianity? Is this something that should have any influence on greater issues involving religious practice and/or policy at all? Even if a whole lot of people were to see it, and admire it, and profess their allegiance to its viewpoint - would we take this to be the whole and definitive picture, as it were, of Christianity? I guess if the numbers were overwhelming, perhaps. But as a complete statement? Perhaps not even then.

But what do you think?

Oh yeah, so now I have to break down and, at the risk of sounding uncool, ask: marys? juco dude?

Re: Woe is me

Author: me
Date: 03-25-04 12:18

Bloom I and II.... wrote:

"Oh my, oh Me, As I stated in an earlier post, "(2) As I said, I'm not averse to preferences, only to preferences based on pigment." Is this not as clear, as transparent, as the other arguments on this colloquy favoring the throwback days of non-pigmentation privilege (i.e., merit-based-because-no-one's-around-to-say-otherwise neutrality)? No pigment-based discrimination...or, er, any other kind that throws my bearing out of its center."

And how do you propose to distinguish "pigment" from "culture" in the case of African-Americans and/or Latinos?

The unfortunate fact is that many of these aspects are strongly, but not perfectly, correlated; the relationship of skin color to poverty is well-established. A few individuals such as Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, and John McWorter don't disprove the pattern that can be seen very clearly in demographic statistics. The relationship between color and culture, or culture and poverty, or even poverty and "social class," are similarly strong-but-not-perfect.

How would you propose to address the pernicious background effects of "black culture" (as described by John McWhorter) in a pigment-neutral fashion? There's a reason it's called "black culture," after all.

Re: Minority programs no longer?

Author: me
Date: 03-25-04 12:27

Bloom I wrote:

"if certain demographics feel that higher education opportunities are closed to them to benefit other groups because either (1) we need to atone for past discrimination or (2) society (or - gasp - they themselves) benefit from a racially balanced student body, what do you think the long-term effects of this will be?"

To a certain extent, the long-term effects will depend on whether or not these "feelings" are grounded in reallity. If I "feel" that lining my hat with aluminum foil will keep Elvis from breaking into my house and stealing my valuable paper-clip collection, the long term effect of this belief is simply to make me look like an idiot, and to keep me from taking actual effective security measures like locking the door.

Scapegoating, in particular, seems to be part of human nature; even when nothing is wrong (structurally) with a system, things can still go wrong in individual cases. Not everyone can win the tournament, but it's comforting to blame the referees instead of admitting that you were outplayed. Similarly, not everyone can get into Harvard, but it's comforting to blame "other groups" instead of admitting that you couldn't (or didn't) put together a good enough application.

Demographic Statistics

Author: Someone
Date: 03-25-04 13:20

In a 1991 Gallup Poll, almost half of the African Americans polled thought that three out of four black people lived in the getto. The number of black people who lived in gettos in 1995 was 20%, not 75%.

In 1995, the median income for black families was $25,970, while the figure for whites was $42,646. The black median income is dragged down by the extenuating factor of the low income of unwed mothers living on welfare, a larger proportion of the black population than the white. The median income of black two-parent families is about $41,307, as opposed to about $47,000 for whites. In 1995, 56% of black Americans lived in the South where wages are lower. Black two-parent families earned more than whites in 130 cities and countries in 1994, and in the mid-1990s, their median income was rising faster than whites' was.

In 1960, 55% of the black population lived in poverty-in 2000, less than 25% lived in poverty.

By 1990, one in five blacks was a manager or professional. By 1996, about one in ten of all female managers in America were black and about one in twelve male professionals.

Twice as many blacks were doctors in 1990 as had been in 1960, and three times as many were lawyers.

By 1995, there were no fewer than forty-one black people in Congress and 15.4 % of black people had college degrees compared with 24% for whites.

In 1970, 39% of black people were middle-class, while 70% of whites were. Today, almost 50% of blacks are middle class, an increase of 10% since 1970, while the white middle class has increased by only 5 percent.

Editorial conclusions: The "playing field" is more level than many people think and more level than both fringe elements want.

Re: Demographic Statistics

Author: Bystander
Date: 03-25-04 14:30

Dear Someone,

Thank you for introducing some facts into a discussion that can too easily turn on passion and emotion. It's never hard to find the hot button issues on a Chronicle colloquy site; just count the number of responses. It's far more important, however, for all of us to learn something than for each of us to tell the others 'how we feel.' That might make for good melodrama but the issues are very important and we all can stand to learn something from an informed colleague. So let's have more facts and more discussion of issues.

For example, how has the illegitimacy rate impacted wealth/poverty and educational opportunity and what is the source of its sizeable increase?

We know that there is a yawning gulph between urban and suburban schools. Do union policies on salary, longevity, etc. contribute to the problem or to the solution?

Do we spend far more per capita on education than other countries, where the educational systems are more successful?

There is no more stable economy in America than Washington D.C. where the average family income is high. Why are the schools there in trouble?

New Yorkers pay city income tax as well as state and federal income tax and the cost of living is astronomical and the housing dense. Presumably with that many wealthy tax payers the schools should be good. Are they?

If all of the social policies of the last several decades have failed to bring about equality of opportunity, what is the solution? To have more such social policies or to entertain the possibility that the social policies themselves were flawed? (Related question--if the African-American community strongly supports school vouchers, why do we deny them that opportunity?)

Please take these as serious questions, not political prompts. And consider some of the underlying principles in possible answers. For example, are we prepared to have disruptive students in our schools, even if it means penalizing other students? Why are we so prepared? Is America not sufficiently utilitarian? Are we too idealistic or insufficiently idealistic? Who really benefits from our current educational practices, keeping in mind that the rich can always send their children to private schools? How common is the practice of denying the poor the benefits of private education while the deniers--espousing the values of public education in its current form--send their own children to private schools?

Re: Demographic Statistics

Author: me
Date: 03-25-04 17:31

Someone wrote:

"By 1996, about one in ten of all female managers in America were black and about one in twelve male professionals..

By 1995, there were no fewer than forty-one black people in Congress and 15.4 % of black people had college degrees compared with 24% for whites.

In 1970, 39% of black people were middle-class, while 70% of whites were. Today, almost 50% of blacks are middle class, an increase of 10% since 1970, while the white middle class has increased by only 5 percent."

By your own statistics, 11/12 of male professionals are non-black, 9/10 of female managers are non-black, more than 9/10 of Congress are non-black, nearly 8% more whites than blacks have college degress, and 25% more white than blacks are middle class.

The situation is definitely better than it was in 1960, but it's not nearly a "level playing field" yet.

Re: Demographic Statistics

Author: (Name removed at author's request)
Date: 03-25-04 17:41

Someone,

Thanks for the statistics; would you mind providing a cite? I'd like to read more. Thanks.

But I am a bit surprised you only cite figures for one "historically underprivileged" group. Sadly, I think the story for Native Americans, for one, would be rather different, involving a much less discernible pattern of upward mobility and socioeconomic change.

From a different perspective, and also hard to bring into our picture, the trends in the Latino/a population do not seem to bespeak a "level playing field." That is a complex issue, though, in that the course of recent immigration, drawn from widely differing countries and socioeconomic pools, can skew the way we perceive, and will come to perceive, how much equity there is, and how much we would like to address, rectify, or disregard.

Even as to the Black population, I think when you look at the higher eschelons of America, corporate or academic or whichever sector you might choose, success at the top remains disproportionately White. Do a quick survey of law firms - what percentage of partners are non-White? And investment banks? Engineers? High tech entrepreneurs? Biotech? Academic deans? College/univ. presidents? What could account for this, other than the usual arguments that are made about people of color "opting out" of success? And does this change, or affect at all, the way we consider what is or isn't a level playing field?

Bystander,

I think you raise a lot of excellent points. But perhaps you are a bit dismissive of what has gone before you? - it's true this is a "hot button" issue for some, but many posters have written thoughtful, interesting, and insightful responses.

And hey, how many people have really said this is "how I feel" and left it at that? Au contraire, several of us have disputed (albeit not conclusively!) the value and weight that should be accorded to anecdote and individual experience. Do read back, ok?

I do agree with much of what you've said. But here's a question: it may be true that many of the wealthier Americans send their kids to private school, or have the option to do so, or at least live in high end real estate areas in which the public schools are more or less superlative in quality. BUT they still pay taxes; and most who live in the wealthier neighborhoods pay fairly substantial taxes. So, at least in terms of their tax dollars, they aren't "opting out" of the educational expenditures required to sustain public education. Now, we've seen what reallocation of their tax dollars can lead to - I refer, of course, to the disaster of the CA public schools in the wake of such reallocation programs. But what, then, might be a feasible solution? You seem to imply that vouchers would help. Do you think so?

And while we're at it, could you answer some of the questions you so thoughtfully posed??

Bloom I,
Still meaning to respond to your (brilliant) post...

Re: Demographic Statistics

Author: Bloom I
Date: 03-26-04 09:04

(Name removed at original author's request),

I don't think you need to respond to my question, as "Me" has already exposed me as just another Elvis-lovin' (white trash), tin-foil-hat-wearing (white trash conspiracy theorist), paper-clip-hoardin' (poor white trash conspiracy theorist) yokel who couldn't get into Harvard (uneducated poor white trash conspiracy theorist). Oh, and an "idiot" as well, just to be sure, despite my obvious density, that I'd get the point. After all, how can he and all his high-falutin' pals be wrong (I mean, c'mon, it's only a matter of time before socialism makes a comeback)?

The tortured turns of logic necessary to support their position, however, is clear evidence of its weakness. And it warms my heart, and enrages them, to know that the days of such discriminatory practices are numbered: an economic-based preference system presents a viable, even-handed solution to inequality of opportunity, gives all races the dignity of being treated as equally competent, and avoids the acrimony inherent in having groups compete against one another. The writing is on the wall, and in a decade or so the bitter Blooms and Mes will have to content themselves with being the new nostalgia-bound "college socialists".

Take care,
- Bloom

Re: me's stupid response

Author: A black professional
Date: 03-26-04 11:11

The individual "me" who posted a message on 3/25/04 at 17:31 is typical of those in what I refer to as the "race industry". These are the hustlers who cry racism everywhere so that they can make a buck.

Well, "me", I'm going to throw your own statistics back at you. You say 9/10 of the managers are non-black. That does NOT mean 9 out of 10 are white. 4 out of the nine are asian and another 1 out of the nine is hispanic.

Since you're so concerned about the "level playing field", let's see how far your racism extends. If blacks make up 15% of the population, do you consider it racism that 60% of the NFL players and 75% of the NBA players are black? What about a level playing field for white ball players? Oh wait. I forgot. Its not a level playing field only if black have less than 15% in an occupation. If they have more than 15%, well we'll just ignore that.

Like most on the radical left, you cherry-pick the data you want to support your agenda. You don't ever want facts to get in your way. After all, those facts would ultimately lead to the demise of the race industry and your source of income!!

"race" vs. "economics"

Author: (Name removed at author's request)
Date: 03-26-04 11:19

Dear Bloom and "me",

I looked over the post, and I thought that "me" was (now look what kind of grammatical convulsions you're driving me to, folks!) merely dissing people in general who "felt" opposed to race based policies on the bases of their own biases, stories, and untutored inclination. I honestly didn't take it as a slam on Bloom I.

But before I step in to defend "me," I want to make sure I am right. So, "me," what were you saying?

And hey, will you both forgive me for HATING Elvis? (I know, call me unAmerican, just don't play him in my house!)

Dear Bloom,

Au contraire, I'd very much like to respond to that post. I am a slacker! (But perhaps you've noticed that.)

As to your post above, I hope you know that almost everyone agrees that the days of race based policies were always intended to be "numbered" - i.e., even the Supreme Court has explicitly debated over "how long is long enough," rather than just whether or not such policies should exist at all. Just sayin'.

I'm also not sure that PURE economics-based policies are an ideal solution. First, I'm not sure about the argument re "treating all races with dignity in assuming they are equally competent." You can say, or imply, that certain races have not gotten a fair shake in life - poor secondary education, limited access to resources (libraries, tutoring, etc.), etc. - and say that in many cases, competence can hardly be a given in light of their circumstances, can't you? After all, you are pretty much making the same argument when assisting those who are economically challenged. To argue historic lack of privilege is not to deprive anyone of claims to future competency; it is to acknowledge that intellectual competency, at least, is formed and built upon foundations that have previously been denied or withheld. I think, again, that the same contention applies to race or economic status; and "dignity" is accorded in the acknowledgement, one hopes, as well as in the amelioration of the situation.

You see, this is why I don't get the whole "stigma" argument advanced by Stephen Carter et al. What is so stigmatizing in describing socioeconomic circumstance? I guess it's implying that Blacks and others can't get out of those circumstances without especially attentive programs and policies? Well, first generation Americans can't get out of language barrier circumstances without ESL education (or bilingual education, but we won't even go there!). Is that a debilitating thought? For heaven's sake, why?

Further, if you're worried about group conflict, of course, we will next be talking about class conflict(s) when economic based preferences are implemented. To me, not a problem. I actually think there is an interesting "socialist" element to American education that is almost unique (although if we look at the elite Brit. schools, seems to be crossing the pond to the extent they can afford it) and, ultimately, beneficial to our society. I think according special attention to those who are striving toward the middle classes is hugely important; but I also think it will track race far, far more than perhaps we realize right now. As the next wave of immigrants is drawn from Latin America and, perhaps, the poorer parts of East Asia, Africa, etc., who will be the greatest recipients of educational assistance? Does it really matter, then, if they are "counted" and included based on race or money?

But Bloom and all, won't it be VERY interesting in a generation or two to see how the earlier beneficiaries of preferential treatment will regard race or econ. based policies when those policies benefit a group other than their own? Will they have the same "why should I support them" stance that we hear so often these days?

All the best, (Name removed at author's request)

A Black Professional'a post

Author: (Name removed at author's request)
Date: 03-26-04 13:39

Dear Black Professional,

A few questions for clarification, please:

(1) Could you please explain why "me" is on the "radical left"?

(2) What is the "race industry"? If we use socioeconomic factors to help assess admissions, special mentoring programs, and other resource allocations, is that (also) indicative of an "industry"?

(3) I don't think I "cry racism" - and I know I don't make any money off it (I wish!). Can I indicate a sense that race has been a factor that unfairly distorts (and often thwarts) educational access? Or is that suspect? Why?

(4) Couldn't we agree that there are some fields in which Blacks have been afforded access - and therefore in which they can strive to succeed - without that disproving "bias" in other areas, such as certain professional fields?

I'm fairly sure you haven't been scrutinizing my long posts (who could blame you?!), so let me hastily add that I have very recently left the professional world myself, if that makes a difference; and further, I am conflicted on race based preference, but on the whole, (still) in favor.

And hey, don't we all cherry pick facts to some extent?? I mean, my old firm didn't elect a Black partner until 1989 (and to date, as far as I know, he's still the only Black partner there). Indeed, most NY law firms are barely 10-15% minority, even though many top law schools have 25+ % students of color. Doesn't that disparity trouble you a bit?

Re: Demographic Statistics

Author: Someone
Date: 03-26-04 13:55

(Name removed at original author's request): Happy to provide the cite. McWhorter, J. H. (2000). Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Specifically, the data provided in the post came from pages 9-10 of this book.

Don't be surprised about the limited demographic data since the source only addressed the issues related to black Americans. McWhorter, a black linguistics professor at Berkeley, provides the most balanced analysis of the black/white issue I have ever read. This book is not very popular with extremists because McWhorter addresses the "victimology" mindset espoused by many blacks that does nothing positive to advance their assimilation into the American culture.

There is no doubt in my mind that America represents the greatest opportunities for individual success and happiness. If that is not true, why would anyone want to leave their country and come here to live?. The massive influx of Hispanics, as you mentioned, confirms America's greatness as well as future challenges for assimilation into the great American tapestry.

That is not to say that we have been perfect in our treatment of others, we haven't. Our treatment of the American Indian is one black eye and slavery is surely another. But one has to remember the context in which these events happened. Both were perfectly legal at the time and served the growing economic interests of the country. Looking back now, of course we can see that, even if the country's wretched treatment of indians and slaves was legal, our ancestors were morally wrong in their actions.

Did you know, for example, that Lincoln's emancipation proclamation did not free all slaves as most people think? Slavery was legal in some union states some six years after the south was forced to free its slaves. The freeing of slaves in the south was intended to be a form of punishment on the south-a way to further destroy its economic system which allowed carpetbaggers from the north to take advantage of distressed land values. Also, at the time the founding fathers were struggling with the constitution, the rights of negroes were not included for a very good reason, at the time. Science (read that as the academy, if you will) did not know for certain the intellectual abilities of negroes. In fact, there was much speculation that negroes were one step above the apes but not quite human, perhaps even lacking a soul. In the year 2004, all this sounds completely unbelievable and we cannot understand how "they" could have believed such nonsense. But there is no doubt that 200 years from now, scientists will be writing about how barbaric humans were in 2004, and they will be right for their time just as we are trying to be right for ours. Time has always been a great illuminator, has it not?

One final point, (Name removed at original author's request). Until such time as our youth, both black and white, change their attitude about good grades being "uncool", out international competitors, especially the asians, will continue to eat our economic lunch in the lauded professions, especially engineering and science. These have always been America's strengths until recently. Unfortunately, higher education can do litt