Obama's election should bring an end to Affirmative Action
 

The time has finally come. The decades of affirmative action have finally paid off for black people in the United States. A black man has been elected President, and a large percentage of white people voted for him. Who would have thought this would be possible 40 years ago, or even 10 years ago?

The United States government can now completely end affirmative action policies that only perpetuate racism and stereotypes. Being justified in ending affirmative action is a long way from actually ending it, however. Liberal apologists abound, especially in the current makeup of Congress and soon to be the Supreme Court.

Have white people done enough to atone for the sins committed by their ancestors generations ago?

Is this Tilted Politics or Nonsense?

is this a joke?

Didn't you guys hear? Racism is gone now that a black man has been elected president.

I told my nephew this already. An Obama presidency translates to one thing for him: He no longer has an excuse for failure. While it does not bring an end to institutionalized racism, it does bring an end to white guilt, as exemplified in the OP's post. An Obama presidency is the best thing to happen to social conservatives trying to bring an end to affirmative action.

I thought this topic was essentially just covered in another thread. I don't have the energy right now to say anything about this.

I guess they have to find their silver lining somewhere, hunh?

Did I go to sleep for 5 months and wake up on April 1st?

Angry/Bitter White Man Syndrome

http://bp1.blogger.com/_Q6elCuI-UVY/.../s400/AWG1.jpg

Written by a black woman:

Timalkin - I'd question the term "generations ago"

A quick search of Wikipedia gave me countless examples of openly racist laws in the US which were in effect in my parents life time. I quote one case simply at random:

North Dakota
The state passed three Jim Crow laws. A 1943 statute barring miscegenation was repealed in 1955. An 1899 Constitutional amendment gave the legislature authority to implement educational qualificaitons for electors.

1899: Voting rights [Constitution] Gave legislature authority to establish an educational qualifying test for electors.

1899: Voting [Constitution] In 1899, a constitutional amendment passed declaring "The legislature shall, by law, establish an educational test as a qualifier for suffrage should such a measure be deemed necessary." (Legislature declined to do so.)

1933: Education [Statute] Law stated that "it would not be expeident to have the Indian children mingle with the white children in our educational institutions by reason of the vastly different temperament and mode of living and other differences and difficulties of the two races.

1943: Miscegenation [State Code] Cohabitation between blacks and whites prohibited. Penalty: 30 days to one year imprisonment, or $100 to $500 fine.

__

Racism, supported by law and the state, is sadly very recent in the history of the USA - this is not some ancient and long forgotten crime as you seem to suggest.

timalkin.....if you want to have a discussion on affirmative action (not that there havent been many here already), I would suggest starting such a discussion in a more intellectually honest manner.

To suggest that AA has "paid off" because one black man was elected president in the history of the country, with a large percentage of white votes, is simply ignorant.

But if you want to go that route and proclaim that AA has "paid off", why are there zero black senators out of 100...or only two black governors (one was not elected) out of 50?

There are legitimate discussion points for and against AA.....being an angry white man is not one of them.

If possible, I'd like to have this discussion without resorting to individual members being called names, like "angry white man." You see, I could start calling you different names, but that leads us down a path that is not productive. I'm not sure how I come off as being angry just because I have a valid point that doesn't sit well with many members of a certain liberal persuasion.

Look around at the rest of the world and see how minorities are treated. I think we've done a pretty good job. I'd like to know when people think affirmative action can end. I say right now. The only higher position that a black person can reach in our world would maybe be the Secretary General of the United Nations. Seems like that's been taken care of too.

Affirmative Action may end when racism is ended.

The actions/achievement/status of an individual does not equate the actions/achievement/status of an entire race. Your entire argument is flawed because of this.

why is it ignorant?

why not make it by meritocracy? The best of the best are the ones that get ahead. What is wrong with that?

When I work hard for something and am considered to be the best, and lose to someone because of race, how should I feel about that? How should one feel about bettering themselves when someone is handed a pass because of race? I say that is racism, but others say it is affirmative action.

Because instituational racism precludes people because they were born black, were born in the inner city/poor part of town? And that gets them a "go to the front of the line card?" Poverty exists in all countries. There are dichotomies of rich and poor, there is not a single country where everyone is equal in economic stature.

When people tell me that a poor person from a bad part of town cannot make it, and I see legal and illegal immigrants come here with nothing but their shirt on their backs and somehow achieve, I can't seem to understand how the liberal mindset works.

Except you don't.

You're looking in places that are politically convenient, then.

Denial. Not just a river in Africa.

How does AA NOT perpetuate racism? This may have been appropriate 40-50 years ago, not now. If this country is trying to counter racism this only aggravates the situation. Just as Cynthetiq commented descisions should be made on the merit of work and accomplishment not any race. IMO AA is in the same catagory as reparations, its stepping backwards not forward. Should a majority of the US uproot and leave to compensate for Manifest Destiny? Barak being elected is a sure indication the AA should be stopped. Anything that fuels racism should be stopped.

Hasn't it been said a million times already that the folks who currently benefit most from AA are women?

Even if Obama's election completely nullified any sort of meaningful remnants of racial injustice in the whole universe, that still wouldn't be a good reason to dispose of AA.
-----Added 29/11/2008 at 06 : 03 : 06-----
Also, it should be noted that anyone who thinks that the elimination of AA would then mean that employment decisions would suddenly be primarily based on the merit of the applicants is mistaken.

It is my understanding that most HR folks presume that the applicant pool self-selects based on qualifications. This means that they don't have to worry about whether they're getting the best candidate, as long as they sample the applicant pool correctly. All your hard work and qualifications don't mean shit if you fail to conform to the idiosyncratic, nonstandard resume formatting desires of whichever HR person happens to be vetting the stack.

Good point.
Thank you for bringing it up. AA perpetuates racism and sexism. This last election clearly shows that past views of gender are outdated. AA promotes the very thing it is attempting to prevent.

It has already been said, but I'll reiterate: one != all.

This will be a more valid discussion when the proportion of black and female Congresspersons and CEOs matches that of the general population.

We are decidedly far from that metric at the present moment.As an unrelated side note, I have to say I'm kinda proud to be from the state responsible for 2/5 of the black Senators so far in history, and the first African American president. That's pretty awesome.

I can understand that position. But let's look at places that don't where we can compare, is there any? Closest I can see is European countries...

there are for sure more progressive right? do they have a more diverse band of CEOs? politicians?

Actually, cynthetiq, one area where I will agree with timalkin is that we have done a pretty good job when compared to the rest of the world. That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of room for improvement though.

Umm, don't remember giving you permission to use my photo.

cyn....is the college admission system based on a meritocracy?.....when standardized admission tests have a bias against minorities (as found by numerous studies)?....or when legacy admissions are given to kids whose parents or grand parents attended the university (far more likely to be white)?

Is it a meritocracy when white small business owners are more likely to get loans at better rates than minority small business owners?

Regarding women and AA....before Title 9 (an AA program) provided some level of equity in athletic scholarships, was it a meritocracy that boy soccer players or swimmers or tennis players or golfers had access to full athletic scholarships and girl soccer players or swimmers or golfers did not?
-----Added 29/11/2008 at 09 : 19 : 40-----
Until fairly recently with the influx of minorities from Africa and the Middle East, many European countries were far more homogeneous, with no history of institutional racism built on slavery.

BTW, several European countries have had women prime ministers.
-----Added 29/11/2008 at 09 : 27 : 50-----
I guess I should delete it from e-harmony....ISO "angry/bitter white woman" who hates moonlight walks on Mexican beaches.

I guess I should stop using one of my many mug shots when I sign up for on-line dating services?

/thread jack

You never know....you might get an angry bitter ann coulter lookalike...if you like skinny whiny blondes.

I'd rather pound my nuts flat with a wooden mallet then sleep with anyone who even reminds me of man coulter.

Heard she had her jaw broken and wired shut. Like to buy that guy a beer or two.

You're assuming it was a guy....and not one of those consenting animals (from the prop 8 thread).
-----Added 29/11/2008 at 09 : 54 : 54-----
Putting the focus back on the concept of a meritocracy.

I would ask again......is the college admission system based on a meritocracy?.....when standardized admission tests have a bias against minorities (as found by numerous studies)?....or when legacy admissions are given to kids whose parents or grand parents attended the university (far more likely to be white)?

Is it a meritocracy when white small business owners are more likely to get loans at better rates than minority small business owners?

Regarding women and AA....before Title 9 (an AA program) provided some level of equity in athletic scholarships, was it a meritocracy that boy soccer players or swimmers or tennis players or golfers had access to full athletic scholarships and girl soccer players or swimmers or golfers did not?

Do you think any disparity in standardized admission tests or college admissions could have something to do with young black people holding this man up as a role model?

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/200...snoop_dogg.jpg

When drugs, guns, and "pimpin" make up a huge part of the popular culture worshipped by young black people, it's small wonder that academics are not a top priority.

I agree that Obama or Condi Rice or Colin Powell or Clarence Thomas may be better role models...but the fact remains that role models have absolutely nothing to do with bias against minorities in standardized college admission testing.

The bias in testing existed long before the role model.

There are just as many studies that dismiss that claim. As for the second point, I don't disagree that happens or has happened- can you point to any source that shows its validity?
Im not asking that to be confrontive, I was not successful in finding anything.

I agree that there are studies on both sides. I dont agree that there are "just as many." Everything I have read would suggest that the preponderance of studies suggest a bias.

The legacy issue is more of a factor in private institutions, but w/o searching, I agree its anecdotal.

There is an issue, but it starts well before the exams. Mathematics, science, etc cant be biased in any one direction.

Putting test question bias aside, might test results be influenced by the fact that middle and upper class white kids are more likely to afford to have access to pre-test tutorials, with sample math/science questions from previous tests, than inner city black kids?

A meritocracy or can money buy the opportunity to achieve a higher score?
-----Added 29/11/2008 at 10 : 31 : 40-----
And this doesnt even take into consideration the fact that there are significant disparities in K-12 education....a far higher student/teacher ratio in inner cities school and a far lower student/computer ratio in those schools than in predominately white suburban schools...an issue that has been addressed in other threads.

Just a side note - I think one of the problems with this thread, and the general nature of many of these discussions, is the manner in which they are framed. If you wanted an open discussion on race, the impact/meaning of the election of Obama on national race-related practices such as affirmative action, you could probably get such a conversation started by framing your opening statement differently. You start out combative, and yes I would have to say bitter/angry - and then you're surprised that people respond to it defensively or dismissively. I seem to recall many posts on ye olde TFP regarding affirmative action and its relative merits and faults, and you might that many of the more "liberal" posters might have opinions that would surprise you if you didn't start things off in the way that you have.

I personally don't think affirmative action, as it is presently structured, is a perfect system. I think it will have to be adapted as race relations and economic patterns shift. The root idea is equal opportunity and to state that ethnicity, or apparent ethnicity, has no impact nor correlation on equality of opportunity is incorrect as far as I can tell. Perhaps I am simply uninformed, but I never have fully understood the anger that many (predominantly whites) feel over affirmative action. I've never personally been affected by it, as far as I can tell - and I am definitely in a field where there is a large disparity between white males and everyone else. My understanding is that with affirmative action policies, race is one factor that plays into a job/promotion decision - but its not the only factor. If my work product is superior, I've always found that was rewarded - regardless of the fact that I'm a straight Southern white male, who likes bluegrass music and beer and football and all the rest. I also hate to say this, but I've also found that by appropriate networking, I've been able to take advantage of some affirmative action policies. Me, a little old cracker, benefiting from AA. Of course, in order to do so I had to work with "minority" people, but I've found that to be a strength instead of a weakness.

In short, I don't personally have the time to get angry over this kind of thing. I play the cards I am dealt, and I keep getting my shit done. I recognize that there are disparities in opportunity to education and vocation choice, and I think affirmative action policies are intended to help address this. I don't think the system is perfect, but I don't expect anything cobbled together by a bunch of different people with different perspectives and personal human limitations to be perfect. I think it should be reformed as our national situation changes. I do not think that if you thought that affirmative action was flawed but acceptable 1 month ago that the election of Barak Obama should not alter that view. Thus, this really comes down to the more classic affirmative action discussion in my opinion.

If a school system decides that they want to encourage kids to go into math and science, and thus they start afterschool programs to encourage analytical thinking in kids (Science of the Mind, First Lego League, Math Team, Science Clubs, etc) and they finally get a few kids into good engineering programs, should they stop the afterschool programs because they "worked?" If you're not careful timalkin, you're going to run into the position of helping to justify the continuation of affirmative action policies because they are obviously "working," if that's the level you want to boil this conversation down to. I think the situation is more complicated than that, personally.

edit: forgot a word.

Question: If an HR person gets two identical resumes, one from James Bradshaw and one from D'Andre Jackson, which is he more likely to call first?

A large percentage of black children do not have fathers that are part of their family. Many black children are raised by their mothers or grandmothers and probably don't know who their real father is. If they do know who their real father is, he's probably in jail or has been in jail for committing any number of crimes.

Why would you study hard in school and look for a way out when you can go sling some dope on the corner and make a lot of money in a short amount of time? These kids grow up to perpetuate the same environment for the next generation.

This environment alone is not conducive to getting good grades in school and getting accepted to a good college or good job. The fault lies within the black community itself, not the system. Too many black people take the "easy" way out by selling drugs or living off of welfare and end up in trouble with the law. Plenty of opportunities are out there for anyone who wants to take them.

We should not accept lower standards just because some people don't want to put in the work to make the grade. I don't see how affirmative action is making the situation any better.

well, first I'd like to say that the above characterization of the black community in America is incredibly insulting. News Flash!!! Not all black people are drug dealers. Shocking, I know - but true. You're right - the adoption of Snoop Dogg (and I have to admit his live stuff with the full band behind him is pretty impressive stuff) for a 25 year old unemployed black man might not be the best choice. Here's the thing. The choice of Kirk Hammett for a 25 year old unemployed white dude isn't a great choice either. Or flip the races - idolizing fuck ups in popular media isn't a smart thing to do.

Second - I reject the notion that this presidential election was primarily about race. It completely takes one aspect and puts it in a vacuum, and throws out the differences in the candidates' positions and the frustration of the American public with the Republican administration for the past 8 years. I also find that to be insulting as a white guy who voted for the "black" guy.

Putting the ugly stereotypes aside, IMO, you are looking for the easy answer and you found it.....its all their own fault!

No..it isnt that simple.

The fault and/or responsibility lies within both the black community that needs to take greater personal responsibility AND the predominantly white system that allows the perpetuation of institutional barriers based solely on race.
-----Added 29/11/2008 at 11 : 17 : 56-----
What Obama hopefully brings to the presidency, unlike his white predecessors, is the credibility within the black community to tackle the issue of personal responsibility (expecting someone to say this is a racist statement)....AND the acceptance within a large segment of the white community to reexamine the larger institutional policies issues and practices, including barriers that still exist in education, the work place, the financial lending system, etc. and whether AA as it is currently applied or some alternative is the most appropriate and equitable solution moving ahead.

or it could be that black communities have the worst funded schools.

nah, it's the hip-hop and the crack whores and the welfare

We have a similar problems here that over the last 10 years or so has just gotten worse and worse it seems. Despite the affirmative actiosn taken by the government in regards to trying to "make up for past wrongs" it doesn't seem to be working.

We still have large groups of Aboriginal Australians roaming the streets at night (I am referring to 13 - 14 year old girls as opposed to adults) during the week and yet I am aware that a portion of the taxes I pay goes to monetary incentives for their parents to send those same kids to school. Yet despite those rewards I know most of those kids don't, that they will drop out after year 10 (our last compulsory year of schooling) if they haven't already stopped going.

Do the affirmative actions of governments around the world need to be looked at in regards to how we treat minority groups - yes they do. In some cases they are not effective and merely encourage the types of behaviours that we are hoping to avoid, but at the same time as long as you have people out there like the KKK still active - as long as people like Nelson Mandela (I know the man won a peace prize but look at a few of his less savoury actions in Africa and you'll see what I mean) are held up as being wonderful despite their actions towards those they should have the most sympathy for how can anyone claim that affirmative action should be stopped?

There are those out there in minority groups who do take advantage of the systems put in place to aid them but there are those out there that are caucasian or asian who do exactly the same thing (look at the dependenacy payments single mothers get for example or unemployment benefits). So that can't be put down to their sex, race or religion because unfortunately people from all walks of life seem to enjoy screwing others over.

Do I have any ideas on how to fix these problems - honestly no I don't. I don't have the background information, the statistics or the true understanding of what life is like for those people to be able to make an informed decision and I think very few out there really do.


****

I know some people those paragraphs would describe perfectly with just the substitution of one word for another (obviously the bright green one) does that mean that I should tell my government to remove all benefits received by young white men and women?

Those types of views Timalkin are exactly why affirmative action is still necessary, as long as you are stereotyping the African American community Barrack Obamas election means nothing.

Please point out where I said that ALL black people are like X. I'm specifically talking about the inner city black youths that were previously mentioned.

I don't think anybody would say that white people are not guilty of the same things. The difference is that a white person can be a huge fuck up and sit around doing drugs, drinking, and committing crimes and not claim that "the man" is holding him down. Describe a black person with those terms, and it's a racist viewpoint with the institutional racism holding him down.

There is a huge double standard between the two, and they are both equally worthless regardless of the color of their skin. Frankly, I don't want my taxpayer dollars propping up welfare queens and other non-contributors whose full-time job consists of figuring out ways to scam the government at every opportunity without having to work a day in their lives, no matter what color they are.

We are in the 21st Century. Time to get off your ass, get a job, take care of the kids you created, and stop blaming faceless white people for everything that sucks about your life.

As an aside, if anyone knows of any lending institution that discriminates against minorities, please report them to the authorities. There are federal laws against such things that are taken very seriously.

So it's not all black people, just all inner city black youth?

Again, you jump right to the simple answer.....because it is illegal, it probably is not occuring.

Employment discrimination exists even though it is illegal. It is just not as overt as in the past.

And lending discrimination exists even though it is illegal, just not as overt as the past because of a variety of factors, including the fact that in many cases, the laws dont require lenders to collect or provide personal data, including race.

From a June 2008 GAO report:
This is not from a generation or two ago.....this was six months ago.

I guess that since "most research suggests...and available studies indicate..." is not 100% conclusive or irrefutable, you have your out.

If you accept even the possibility that available studies indicate that African-American owned small businesses are denied loans more often or pay higher interest rates than white-owned businesses with similar risk characteristics....how is that the fault of the black community?

I honestly dont understand why you cant see that the issue of discrimination and racism is not as simple (or black and white as it were) as you suggest at every opportunity. It is simply wrong, in no uncertain terms, to blame it all on the black community.

What do you think happens more often:

1) A black guy is picked over a white guy because of AA.
2) A white guy is picked over a black guy because of racism.

I don't know which happens more but i'm sure they both happen. The AA system is no where near close to perfect but at least it is trying to solve a real problem. I personally think AA needs to focus more on social programs and education. But that would be crazy socialism and the right would say the world is coming to an end.

I agree with you, that whats I mean by the problem starting well before the exams. The answer isnt to change college standards. The same studies we are both talking about shows there is a common relationship between the scores of the exams and how well students do in their freshman year.

Actually, I know plenty of white people who would do exactly that. Like the couple I ran into in Missouri who got into trouble for running an erotic haunted house. There are also plenty of lazy, stupid white people who blame not being able to get a job on AA. So I'm not sure that there's any sort of real difference between black people and white people here.

There are human beings who like to work as little as possible and blame their lack of success on an oppressive force bigger than them. So far in this thread, I'm not convinced that there's anything racial about that.

But go on, timalkin. Convince me. Your whole argument rests on that being a "black thing". You know, like fried chicken and hip hop. You understand The Blacks so well, please, explain it to me.

I just went to a Q&A with Baz Luhrman who spoke about the undertone of his recent epic Australia and that he wanted to bring forward the idea of the "stolen generation" which went on until the 1970s.

The Stolen Generation - TIME

It has been very interesting to me to learn about this "new" concept.

I'm not sure, but I find both bothersome because we are talking about race being the deciding factor.

Now that you've read the above article and noted that it came from the Jewish World Review, take note that it was written by Larry Elder, a black man known as the Sage from South Central, who somehow managed to rise from poverty and attend Brown University.

Making thing about race continues to focus on race.

cyn....I am still interested in your thoughts on a meritocracy based on the questions I raised earlier:

Is the college admission system based on a meritocracy?.....when according to the preponderance of studies on the subject, standardized admission tests may have a bias against minorities?....or when legacy admissions are given to kids whose parents or grand parents attended the university? or that affluent white kids are more likely to be able to afford pre-test tutorials, with sample questions from previous tests and buy the opportunity to achieve a higher score?

Is it a meritocracy when white small business owners are more likely to get loans at better rates than minority small business owners? (see post #44).

Regarding women and AA....before Title 9 (an AA program) provided some level of equity in athletic scholarships, was it a meritocracy that boy soccer players or swimmers or tennis players or golfers had access to full athletic scholarships and girl soccer players or swimmers or golfers did not?

BTW, Larry Elder has often said he benefited from AA.
-----Added 30/11/2008 at 03 : 01 : 39-----
Here is example on another issue....disparity in prison sentencing and the criminal justice system based on race.

Generally, a state issue; this is from the Wisconsin State Sentencing Commission, but similar results can be found in many states:
While other factors (such as access to expensive, top quality legal counsel as opposed to inexperienced public defenders) may influence sentencing, should the racial factor be ignored?

No it isn't and wasn't based on meritocracy... when I didn't get into a UC school because a black student was black and had lower scores than I did.

The article I quoted states that it isn't in the current fashion.

As far as testing materials is concerned. Parents make sacrifices. How is it that immigrant parents seem to have values where education is important and their don't buy a bunch of namebrand crap?

How is it that immigrants learn how to game the system AS IT IS? They too many know know the bow of the ship, but they LEARN what the requirements are and learn how to participate within those confines. Yet, the black community continues to decry being educated as being a bad thing.

Now this article by a gentleman from Nassau writes it up better than I can. Why can't the group take care of themselves as others have?

Another example from last year's Bush State Department report to the UN CERD.

While the report righfully touts much progress in confronting discrimination in all areas and at the same time, IMO, sugar coats the administrations enforcement effort in ending discrimination, this section on housing discrimination shouldnt be overlooked.:
-----Added 30/11/2008 at 03 : 26 : 43-----
No other immigrant group was brought here by force and lived through 200 years of institutional racism that still persists in many areas.

Damn...why is that so fucking hard to understand?

You just dont want to acknowledge that white high school kids have an advantage in college admission testing.....you dont want to acknowledge that white small business owners have an advantage in access to lending....you dont want to acknowledge that white defendants are likely to fare better in the criminal justice system....you dont want to acknowledge that housing discrimination based on race still exists.

I give up!

This is the crux of the issue right here. Sadly, the US as a whole is so dysfunctionally obsessed with rugged individualism that it's impossible for many to comprehend that what was done to parents and grandparents, and even great grandparents, has an effect on the upbringing, opportunities, and life of the child. We're even seeing this on the biological level as we continue to learn more about epigenetics. It shouldn't be hard to recognize that it also exists culturally.

AA will no longer be necessary when the dumb son of a black president is elected president in turn.

Twice.

You don't want to understand that it's not IMPOSSIBLE for a black kid to succeed. I'm stating that while there are still problems, I don't beleive that it requires construction of OTHER INSTUTIONAL RAICST mechanics and mechanisms that are an AFFRONT to other races.

and if your statement is IN MANY AREAS then those areas should be targets SOLELY and dealt with individually.

A blanket mechanical system isn't to the benefit of those of other races that aren't in the black/white situation.

You don't want to understand that I was discrimated against because a BLACK person was picked someone who earned it fair and square. There are people who today are being discrimated against in NEW racist practices built on by AA and diversity programs.

You don't want to acknowledge that institutional racism, if it exists, has less of an impact on a black person that actually cares about making their life better. You can only blame the system up to a certain point. After that, personal responsibility should kick in.

It's easy to blame the system. It's hard to actually take responsibility for your own actions and actually do something with your life.

Several years ago, I had the good fortune to serve on the DC mayor's citizens commission on community and race relations.

It was a diverse group with diverse points of view, but there was general agreement that complex problems arent solved with unilaterally solutions like "take more personal responsibility" and a general recognition that institutional issues had to be addressed as well.

We made numerous recommendations and many were adopted and small steps taken since then to improve race relations. Serving on the commission was time well spent.

Here....I feel like I'm just banging my head against the wall.

If you think AA is a racist solution rather than a necessary remedy (albeit perhaps overdue now for rethinking and revision), there is nothing more for us to discuss.

If you think its simply.."Obama succeeded despite the barriers, so why cant the rest of them", there is nothing more for us to discuss.

Fuck it....its just not worth it. I'll save for where it might make a difference.

I think these race relation commissions are a waste of time and nothing more than a feel good measure. Any person of any race on such a commission can't say what they really feel if they're against something like affirmative action.

Just look at some of the responses in this thread that imply that I am a racist. That kind of attitude makes a lot of people shy away from speaking their mind for fear of being incorrectly labeled as a racist. When someone calls you a racist, what can you say? "I have a lot of black friends?" That line always goes over real well.

We have to eventually face facts as a nation if we want workable solutions. The biggest thing holding a lot of black people down is themselves. Some aspects of popular black culture are detrimental to success in the United States, unless you consider success to mean selling the most drugs and having killed the most rival gang members. White people can't change this culture.

racist definition | Dictionary.com

I prefer the American Heritage dictionary myself:

dc....how do you define racist? the dictionary I'm using affirmative action applies, since it discriminates against other races.

If you can explain how further discrimination against OTHERS who weren't part of the white/black sitaution and how they should feel when finite resources are given to someone because they are a different race is does not further and perpetuate racist beliefs and discrimination... because so far, all you're saying is that AA doesn't do those things.

I'm telling you that it does, and there's an Asian person who is suing because of it.

What is this case of an Asian person suing over an affirmative action policy?
My guess is it's bullshit like your anecdote about not being accepted into a UC because a black kid was accepted with lower scores.

I call your story bullshit because there is no possible way for you to know why your application was rejected...review boards don't release that information. Furthermore, it's against the law to release another student's application data. So unless someone personally called you up, you couldn't even say what you wrote in the above post. But IF someone did bother to call you up and say things to you like you relayed into this thread about some lower achieving black person taking "your" admission slot, I'd suspect it's someone like timalkin who wanted to pass bullshit information to you due to his own personal agenda.


In all honesty, the reason your app was rejected was more likely due to a failure to demonstrate abstract analyses, which is required above the Master's degree. If you only needed a Master's, you are better served by the Cal State system. If you were applying to a Bach's degree at the UC level, I'm not aware of an actual admission's board but I won't say that there isn't one. There are a few ways to guarantee admission into a UC from high school or a community college in California, being black is not one of them. Your writing samples and statement of intent have more weight than test scores since they demonstrate the levels of analyses a candidate is demonstrating at the time of submission. SAT and GRE scores are correlated with one's success in regards to completion, but they do not indicate goodness of fit with a given program. Hence, they are used as a floor, but not a ceiling. That is, test scores get you in the door, but they are never the reason a candidate is rejected or accepted into a program.

In the UC system, once a candidate meets the objective requirements for consideration, the subjective portions are compared for merit. If you have a 4.0 and a 1600 GRE score, and I've got a 3.6 with a 1380 GRE score, so long as the minimum reqs are 3.0 and 1300, our applications have equal standing in the admission pool at the graduate level. The choices are made based on the subjective portions of the tests and applications. If it wasn't at the graduate level, then it's done by the numbers. AFAIK, there isn't a feasible way to personally vet 20,000 incoming freshman, so I'm fairly confident it's an impersonal process where if you have the minimum scores and there's room, you're admitted. I'm not even sure anyone is even turned away, I'd have to ask some of my undergrads...given that some of my students have not been able to register for classes they need I suspect it's open admission and the registration per classes per quarter are on a rolling admission basis (registration windows open depending on seniority).



Why do you consistently misuse the term "institutional" when discussing racism? It's not an action, or a set of policies. I already outlined it in a thread a few hops down. I don't know why you don't or can't get the understanding of it correct, but the way you are describing it is not reflecting that you have an accurate understanding of the concept.

This thread is exactly what I predicted would happen...the same people who posted in the other thread would rehash it in this one without any indication that anything written in the other thread was even considered. I am surprised it happened this fast as the other thread is only a few posts down. People usually wait a few months so the memory of what has already been discussed fades a bit...so in this sense it's odd.

Found in this post

smooth, again, you'd like to make it equitable by putting races at seats of the table so that each table can be equally represented, and each race has to struggle within their own ranks to get those "saved seats".

I don't believe such a thing. Ever.

That may depend on multiple factors:

Alphabetical order (last name): James Bradshaw
Alphabetical order (first name): D'Andre Jackson
First received: indeterminate
What order they are on the stack: indeterminate

You're putting up an argument for which there are insufficient facts on which to form a conclusion.

Furthermore, your argument is inherently sexist, and probably racist as well (it assumes explicitly that the HR person is a man, and implies that he's a white man). However...

• What if the HR person is black?
• What if he's Chinese, Japanese, or Latino.
• What if the HR person is a woman?

My point is this: You're ASSUMING that a bias exists for any HR person, but your argument makes other assumptions that may or may not exist.

smooth, this better explains why I believe that the best of the best should be allowed to bubble up to the top, and why I don't agree with AA. If I was still a voter in CA I would have voted for 209 to pass as it has.

Based on our conversations here, do you feel that 209 should not been passed?

How does what you posted in that blurb support your claim that:
The "because of it" implies that the student is suing because he was denied acceptance based on the fact that he is not black, according to the substance of your paragraph. I don't see anything like that in the chunk you quoted. I don't even see any evidence that he was rejected based on race at all. Is there any?

And what did I say that leads you to claim this:
I'm at a loss as to the basis of your conclusions in both of those instances.

As written, the bolded portion is a non-sequitur. Would you fill in the premises that link affirmative action with not alllowing the best of the best to bubble up?

So long as there are mechanisms that are in place that allow for people to be given an opportunity to advance because of race, or given exception because of race, then some people will always SUSPECT position/achievement/ to have come from such mechanism.

So perfect SAT and 1% yet still doesn't make the cut? Not necessarily black, but not one of the "required" diversity.... in other words, maybe they had too many Asians already?

If AA requires that the candidates be from diverse pools as opposed to the best of the best, then how is it that they will be allowed to succeed when someone who has earned a spot but is given a denial because the spot needs to go to someone more diverse, allowing the best of the best to be represented?

In regards to the race for Mr. Li here's an article from NJ.com.

Right. Completely ignore the rest of the resume....

I've interviewed two dozen applicants for a job recently in Sales. Two dozen more never even got an interview because their resume was mis-spelled, poorly written, or all-caps (my personal favorite). I never even bothered looking at the names until I was dialing their phone numbers to schedule the face-to-face interview.

Nice job at calling us, but not really calling us, racist.

cyn--admissions to princeton etc is not simply a matter of grades and sat scores.
there's alot of emphasis placed on recommendation letters and personal experiences/abilities as well. and that's not a bad thing---in my travels through schools like that, i found that being able to do well and being interesting in the classroom are not necessarily the same thing. i doubt seriously that mister li's suit will end up winning.

but if you want to be snippy about ivy league admissions policies, try taking a look at legacies. the kids of alumnii, particularly alumnii who give money to the universities, are not the same as for other people. it's an example of class discrimination, but because it requires actually addressing class, there aren't a whole lot of lawsuits that get press, and still fewer that get press which includes commentary from that nitwit ward connerly...

let's try again

Your question is a strawman and an appeal to emotion.

You want the answer "James Bradshaw, because who the fuck would hire a person named a ghetto black guy named D'Andre Jackson when I could have safe, suburban whitebread Jimmy?" As others have pointed out, the answer of who he calls first (or hires) may or may not have anything to do with race. Certainly for some individuals, they might be wary of hiring a D'Andre Jackson because they harbor some prejudice or because they're just straight up racist, but there's no good answer to the question that makes any difference in this conversation.

I don't doubt the legacy items as I could have easily gone to Notre Dame University on that kind of ticket and I chose not to, too cold I thought when I was still living in sunny So. Cal.

I imagine that going to Yale and then transferring to Harvard is just as much the same as going through those hoops you speak of. Yet couldn't make the mark at Princeton? I think there's a little more to it than you or I care to understand, I can agree with you on that.

I'm not saying every HR person would do that (most wouldn't), but to think that Obama as President means no one ever will again is naive.

As is it naive to think that AA has any effect other than to reinforce making choices based on race.

AA is a clumsy band-aid to the serious problem of cyclic poverty and lack of education in poor neighborhoods among certain minorities. The problem is lack of funding to public schools. The problem is a lack of cohesive family structures among minority populations. The problem is poverty severe enough that the opportunity cost of an education is outweighed by the "ease" of either working a menial job to pay the bills or a life in a gang or in the world of selling drugs. AA does not and never will address those problems in any way-it simply punishes some people for being of one race (gender) and rewards other people for being of one race (gender). That's an intellectually bankrupt system if you're trying to solve the problem of people making decisions based on race.

Bias assumes equal ability. The vast majority of differentiation on tests scores can be correlated to difference in ability.


I wonder why school systems have a problem getting teachers to teach in poor, urban schools populated by mostly black students. Hint, it has nothing to do with racism.

The response to this, of course, is that it's not specific, individual oriented racism in the hatred of other sense of the word but rather the systemic, structural racism that's omnipresent in our society (I say that with as little value judgment attached to it as possible). That's more the problem I noted in my previous post, and, unfortunately, it's one that's a motherfucker to solve. So instead of trying to solve it, we gave up and said "we'll just compensate for lower scores/grades/aptitude by giving them a handicap." It works ok in golf. It doesn't do a good job of helping groups of people improve their situation.

So I take it you'd support a renewal and modernization of Johnson's Great Society/War on Poverty? Because if that's the case, then I'm all for it.

Unfortunately, the people who are vehemently against affirmative action are often the same people who are against many of the other things we can do to combat poverty. If we're going to be serious about tackling this issue, we need to take a multi-pronged approach, combining affirmative action - which works to help the current generation make up for a weak foundation - with a full-scale War on Poverty that strengthens the foundations for future generations.

You're right: affirmative action is just a band-aid, but I don't see many people supporting the overhaul that it would take to truly address these problems.

I really have no interest in affirmative action as a concept or any part of any plan to combat anything. It's a bad solution, and a solution which, in my opinion, does as much harm as it does good.

I think poverty as an endemic problem with a capitalist system, so I don't know that a "War on Poverty" would do any more than a "War on Drugs" does. There are always going to be lazy people, unlucky people, stupid people and incapable people. And those people are going to be poor. Without turning this into a giant discussion about the virtues of capitalism, I think what we need to figure out how to fix are why specific communities of people find themselves trapped in a pattern which makes it substantially harder for them to achieve than others.

Anecdotes being what they are, my family is Jewish and my great grandfather immigrated here with the clothes on his back from Ukraine just before WWI. Four generations later, his progeny are almost without fail all professionals. My wife's family is Chinese and immigrated here with nothing after the CCP literally stole all their assets and they had to flee the country in the wake of the revolution. Two generations later, they're all going to college.

So here's what I'm saying. Slavery is not all that far past, and laws upholding race-based discrimination are even more recent. Depending on how you want to count, we have at most three generations (probably two, though arguably one) since Brown and separate is not equal. I would not claim even in the slightest that racism is "gone" or dead, but there's something...bigger...going on than simply racism. It's a convenient scapegoat, because it looks ugly, and it is ugly, but it's not the only cause.

People need to be willing to help themselves, even as we build social programs to help them. There is an unquestionable glamorization of the thug lifestyle-bling, bitches, cars, power, respect-and being a traditionally well-educated and productive member of society doesn't fit anywhere in it. That leads to kids without fathers or families. It leads to cyclical violence. It leads to substance abuse. It leads to a lack of positive role models that people can relate to. I honestly don't know if a kid from inner city Detroit can relate to Barack Obama as being someone he could aspire to be. I feel like I know a lot of pretty WASP-y kids who seem to me to have a pretty similar life history to Obama.

I think the solution would take an enormous amount of local, community energy and support in the context of a larger framework. And if we could make it happen, I would happily support it, but a lot of people-and not just white bigots-need to change their attitudes to make that a reality. In my opinion, all affirmative action does is reinforce the concept of us and them and reinforce race as being an appropriate way to sort people. When they came up with it, I can see how it was necessary, but I think it has run its course.

And, as an aside, I don't think the election of Barack Obama has the slightest bit to do with why AA needs to go away. The fact that a half black man was elected president is certainly historically and symbolically important, but it doesn't mean anything. AA was bad before, and it's still bad and it will continue to be bad, because it lets people feel like we're doing something about the problem, when we're not, and we're hurting people who have worked hard and have achieved simply because they have the wrong chromosomes or skin color.

Anyone who claims there aren't a multitude of factors at play here is either ignorant or disingenuous. But I'm not a black parent raising a kid in the inner city, so it's not worth my time to concentrate on what that person should be doing. More focus on our own part of the puzzle and less on how we think other people should live their lives would benefit us all. Not to mention, it's a bit of a chicken/egg scenario: it's easy to glamourize the thug life when you feel your society doesn't care about you, and it's easy not to care about people who glamourize the thug life.

So, how about focusing on the things we can implement as a society, because that's something we as voters can have a direct impact on?

We have an unfortunately small window through which to look with regard to the War on Poverty, but it does appear to have been headed for some degree of success. When Johnson introduced the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964, 23% of children (below 18) lived under the poverty threshold. By 1969, that number had dropped nearly 10 points to 14%. Unfortunately, that's also when Nixon took office and the War on Poverty began to be dismantled. By 1983, the child poverty rate had risen back to 22.3%, and in 1993 it was 22.7%. Thankfully we've improved some and the child poverty rate was "only" 18% in 2007.

Of course, Johnson's plans for a Great Society weren't perfect, and we know much more now than we did then. That doesn't help much if we treat our current knowledge the same way we've treated uncomfortable revelations in the past. Carter tried to warn us about our energy policy 30 years ago. In 1972 a study was released showing limits to growth that could lead to global economic collapse mid-21st century if we don't create a more sustainable lifestyle. It was ignored and panned and people preferred to feel happy and hopeful about the future... and now it is being shown that we are still on the trajectory that the study predicted. The point is, we can fight these problems - poverty, energy, climate change, food - if we have the courage to accept that they exist and that they require comprehensive attention. Fluttering between having a War on Poverty for 5 years and then having Reaganomics 10 years later, or between having solar panels on the White House roof and then seeing them as useless, does none of us any good. These problems haven't gone away, and they're not going to.

The War on Poverty is a start, but we have over 40 years of new experience and technology at our disposal to make it even more effective. There's no reason why we can't or shouldn't see this issue as one of the top challenges we face. We always should have.

Idealistically, I absolutely dislike the idea of affirmative action, but until we have a real, comprehensive initiative to fight poverty, I'd rather have a faulty band-aid than nothing at all. I think we agree far more than we disagree.

Anyway, Christian Science Monitor has a pretty decent article on the subject as well: Affirmative action's evolution | csmonitor.com

(And sorry if this post is somewhat incoherent - it is 4 am after all!)

Fixed that for you. It isn't just young black people that look up to musicians and athletes.

Nice one there. You're following the pattern of a racist. Start with white guilt questions and then blame their social status on the myth that the hip hop subculture (whose following is just as white as black).

i think the premise of the thread is absurd.

the counter-argument would point to institutionalized or structural features of racism---the last few posts outline the case for this pretty well (frosstbyte, smeth & kutulu)...so i figure at this point, it's incumbent on the timalkin to make a coherent argument that structural racism does not exist.

failing in that, there's nothing left to talk about so the game is over.

Yes, SM, I think we do largely agree, AA just leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth conceptually.

I think you're being somewhat disingenuous, kutulu. Even though timalkin is oversimplifying the problem, there remains a not insignificant problem that the hip hop subculture is idolized in a lot of the same neighborhoods who would also be prime locations for people to benefit from an affirmative action program. And that image does not promote education or mutual respect or helping your community. Those musicians and athletes are role models and their attitudes and actions are emulated. Certainly it is not the only reason why inner cities have problems getting kids to go to school, to stay in school and to be motivated to succeed in school where they can be competitive in applying for colleges without affirmative action. But it is a factor and it does contribute to an impression that education is not the way to survive and get respect from your peers.

This is a complex problem and it needs a complex solution and denying that the hip hop subculture contributes to the problem simply because suburban white kids like it too or because it's just a symptom of the problem isn't going to get us anywhere.

except frosstbyte, and I think you're making some really interesting points so far, what if the reality is that "education is not the way to survive and get respect from your peers"? what if that's actually true and realistic? then the issue is not at all the hip-hop culture, regardless of who is or is not paying attention to it, but the reality of the situation on the ground.

and this can be taken in the context of structural racism...or it can be taken in the rubber meets the road sense of how effectively a textbook protects a student from another's physical violence.

leaving aside the survival proposition, do you honestly see evidence that our culture rewards education with respect?

but isn't that about valuing the idea of education to come from the community? or is it that we have to force it upon them to protect them from themselves?

first off, can we exclude hip hop from this? nothing good or interesting is going to come of it being here, and i doubt seriously that timalkin knows anything to speak of about the form, otherwise it would have been brought up in the way it was.

secondly, if the problem is institutional or structural racism, then the response from timalkin has to address that point. otherwise, ain't nothing happening.

i'm fading in here because this is the place the last thread ground to a halt over. if there's to be anything different here---which i doubt will happen---then this is the way to go. demonstrate that structural or institutional racism has been eliminated. it is self-evident that this cannot be done without some sort of shuck and jive, which will no doubt turn on an attempt to "misunderstand" what's being discussed.

This just in:

A Mexican came into our country legally. All immigration problems are fixed!
A poor person won the lottery. Poverty is gone!
A starving child was fed. Hunger is a thing of the past!
...

it's easy to blame Hip Hop culture if one can just ignore the fact that the same problems existed in the black community pre-1980

In the spirit of the OP, re: presidents and affirmative action

Well, I suppose there might be some truth to what you say, but I guess my point is our focus should be on figuring out why that is the case and then how to make that not be the case. I mean, obviously, right now, if your family is poor and living in a ghetto, it's more straightforward to drop out of school, join a gang and bring home drug money than it is to gamble on maybe getting into school to rack up loans to maybe get a good job when you graduate. The question is why do some groups of people succeed in that latter gamble whereas other groups languish in the former? I think roach is probably right that we've zero'd in on what is perhaps a useless aspect of the problem, but my feelings, again, are that we need to focus on the problem and solving the problem of CYCLICAL poverty and poor education instead of tossing affirmative action at it.

The article you quoted, dc, is painfully reaching for a meaningless conclusion. Sure, people get things all the time because of who they are and not what they did, and the legacy system at elite schools, particularly during the era when Bush was applying, was corrupt and stupid. And, shockingly, they got rid of it. But to describe it as affirmative action because it's politically convenient doesn't do anything to help the argument that affirmative action is a bad thing. In fact, it actually makes affirmative action look WORSE, because (if you want to call it that) it got someone like George W. Bush into Yale.

The dirty white bastards that designed and are perpetuating "institutional" or "structural" racism need to be fired. They are obviously not doing their jobs if so many of "them" are getting through and making successful lives for themselves. One was even elected President! Who was asleep at the wheel?

The ultimate question that I'd like to have answered is this:

When can we safely eliminate affirmative action?

It looks like too many people are overlooking personal responsibility in favor of a helping hand from the government.

nice timalkin...dodge the question.
i expected nothing more or less.

the problem, really, is that your question is meaningless. it is meaningless because you refuse to take actual contexts into account. it is pretty obvious why this follows--your question would not exist as it does were you to take context into account. there was a period not so long ago which was so organized that conservative superficiality had to be taken seriously. that period is over, and now this superficiality sinks back into being what it was before it enjoyed a brief and catastrophic period of being ascendant.

so since there's no reason to take such nonsense seriously any more, not even as a positioning move in a debate, the problem remains--your ability to defend your position hinges on your ability to control which information is framed in or out. the thread has surpassed those limits, and you cannot call it back.

so you either answer the question or the game ends.

frost, is your position that most black kids join gangs, and that most gangs deal drugs, and that most members of black communities are unsuccessful?
because those positions are held directly opposite to the data.

most black kids do not join gangs, of the ones who do, most join traditional street gangs. traditional street gangs do not deal drugs.
most members of black communities grow up and lead crime-free lives in whatever jobs they can secure...whether that's "success" to you is another matter altogether.

my experience is that discussions regarding affirmative action are often in relation to higher education and career promotions.
but only a sliver of people in any given work context are promoted and a fraction of our population attends higher education.

I'm not sure why the discussion fell to trying to figure out why urban black youth are not particularly concerned about promotions in a professional career or getting into Harvard or UCLA. The only people who will really care about your newly minted JD are other people with JD's. The only people who will care about my PhD will be another university or a legal policy think tank. Neither of our degrees is going to give us so much as a soda, much less respect from pretty much any regular person walking down the street. I hesitate to say whether it'll get you much in whatever firm you go work for, too!

Seriously, you've got a sharper mind than asking why kids don't think going to school is worth a shit.
How many of your cohort actually finished? I'd be surprised if it was much more than 50%. So even taking the weirdos who thought to themselves at age 13 "I'm going to be a lawyer" (and if you didn't realize it by now, we were fucking weird and not the typical 13 year old), and even those who actually made it to law school, even those self-selected few didn't make it all the way. It was a Big Deal when you passed your exams. So big of a deal that you posted it on an anonymous internet forum. It was a big deal because it was a difficult and rare accomplishment. Did you accomplish that feat all by your lonesome?

What do people think affirmative action does? Does it fund personal tutors for kids in the ghetto? Who does their math homework...an IRS agent?
Does someone personally hold their dick when they pee?

By the time someone is applying to Stanford, haven't they already proved their own ambition enough?
All AA seems to do is make clear, when you get to a certain level we're going to make sure not to lose you because of a trait you didn't have any say in.
Now I've got a thread here that is arguing that white males are walking around society believing that no matter what they do, no matter their personal achievements, they will be limited in their success on the basis of being white.

Why, if personal responsibility is so important as being claimed in these threads, do these people not conclude that they failed to get what they were after because they weren't good enough? Why are a group of white males defending affirmative action against a group of non-white males in these threads?

It seems like the disappointment is that, given a few slots made available to minorities through various programs, there aren't enough to go around.
Out of a handful of people vying for acceptance, one or two make it in. Meanwhile, the back door is open for anyone who has the money or connections.
Somehow this is taken as evidence that there is no problem at the structural level...

I'd not say that open for anyone with money/power/connections since again, the seating at the table is limited.

I don't know why you are defending it. I'm just saying that I don't like it. I see it's place and understand why it exists, but I find that the role causes more strife than it does help from my own experiences.

I have concluded that when I knew it was the factor why I didn't get the job/promotion it was my fault. When I know that there are diversity programs in play, I cry foul.

What I'm troubled by is the fact that as a hiring manager, I'm trying to higher the best of the best, and have been told and been to training programs for hiring more diverse (read: not white) candidates. So even if I was to have found a wonderful Russian or Slavic (read: ethnic) candidate, even if that person was more qualified, I could not hire such an individual as they wanted more diversity within the ranks.

I learned how to skirt around these rules, I found the best diverse candidates in house and developed them to the skills that I wanted so that I could hire within and hire diverse. It was a win/win for me for many reasons. But barring the ability to have candidates to groom and pick from, if they didn't exist, I wasn't allowed to pick the best of the best. I had to pick minorities because that was the requirement albeit unspoken.

..

And when the amount of white professional basketball players matches that of the general population, no doubt.

Why does this matter?

In a world where racism is ended, should we expect to have to have every governing legislative body sliced up nicely with racial demographics that match the general population? No, of course not. There's really no value in that whole idea, and I would go much farther to say its inherently racist itself. It assumes all those of a minority group are homogeneous, and their needs can only be met by one of their own persuasion.

In a world with no/little racism, those positions could be filled with people of any race and no one would notice the difference.

Forget racism - in a world where everyone is given the same opportunities, the demographics of bodies such as legislatures will naturally end up close to the demographics of the population as a whole. There's a huge difference between government bodies not matching the population demographics and a basketball team not doing so. Unless you're about to argue that black people's brains work differently than white people...but I don't think you want to go down that road.

IMO, you are confusing or blurring the line between affirmative action and quotas.

..

It follows directly from the Central Limit Theorem, blah blah blaghetty blah...

What he's saying is that if you assume that all races are equal, then that would also mean that all races are equally suited to public office, and would have the same liklihood of attaining public office. All other things being equal, one would expect that the distribution of different races amongst elected officials would track the distributions of different races amongst the general populace.

If all things were "equal," I would tend to think that mathematically, over a "statistically significant" period of time, the demographics of elected bodies (especially something like state legislatures, governorships, and the federal legislative bodies) would tend towards the population demographics.

edit: Damn you, you filthy bastard!!! Foiled...once again!!!

I would put it a bit differently.

Candidates for high elective office (Governor or US Senator) should be qualified.

One reasonable way to measure "qualified" is having served in a lower elective office.....mayor/city council, state legislature.....

The pool of qualified blacks for these higher elective office by having served in these lower elected positions has increased significantly in the last 40+ years (since passage of the Voting Rights Act).

In an ideal world, that would translate upward over time and it hasnt .... we only have two black governors and zero black senators.

pig, you can follow me directly from my central limit theorem any day.