2 UW-Madison students challenge Roger Clegg — the president of the Center for Equal Opportunity:
Like the clip in the previous post, this was recorded at a Federalist Society-sponsored debate on September 13th.
[Video shot and edited by me.]
ADDED: I want to say that, for me, the second questioner exemplifies a central problem for Clegg and his agenda. The students at a university are always the students who were admitted. They feel hurt or outraged if they think the message is that they shouldn't be here. They're here, in the room, and the individuals who did not get in are not here to cry out with corresponding outrage.
It reminds me of debates about abortion. Those who were aborted are never present in the room to express their perspective on the issue. The emotions of those who are not present may be expressed, vicariously, by others, but it's another matter entirely to say to human beings as they stand in your presence: Under my proposed policy — the only morally/constitutionally permissible approach — you lose.
Now, I'm sure Clegg would try to find a way to say these students wouldn't lose. Under a race-blind approach to admissions, some of them would get in, and, if so, they won't be burdened by a stigma that, he would say, attached when race is taken into account. And, in any event, a switch to a color-blind approach would only take place prospectively, so it wouldn't affect any of these students, who got in under the existing policy, and no matter how illegal or immoral the policy is, they didn't design it. They played by the rules in effect at the time, and they won and deserve their prize.
The policy will only affect individuals who are not in the room, who are out there, just as the students who didn't get in this year are out there. The difficult thing — and the true moral challenge — is to visualize those who are affected who are not in the room to express pain when you hurt them.
AND: I don't know that Clegg's primary concern really is for the individuals whose applications were rejected but who would have gotten in under a race-blind approach. I think he expressed more concern for the harm done to the students who did get in, the ones who were in the room resisting his message. He was telling them, to their faces, that they were being stigmatized by affirmative action. In that light, the young woman's statement "You disrespected me" really is not such an inaccurate understanding of what he was saying. He was concerned about her, but it wasn't a kind of concern she appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
131 comments:
By thinking.
That statement is a clear expression of white supremacist thinking.
Affirmative action is white supremacy.
The young lady said it all.
Affirmative Action has been here for how many years???
Well HOW MANY?
Isn't it time to get over it? Or are we gonna make every minority a permanent special class of person.
I mean, come one, Obama is THE 'Affirmative Action' president. And you see what that got us.
Time to ditch Affirmative Action and make everyone stand up for themselves.
It is very disappointed that a honors graduate does not understand what affirmative action is. If she graduated with honors and is prepared to work harder than her peers then she has no need for adjusted outcomes.
"You disrespected me."
Do they still teach English?
As rhhardin said, affirmative action is white supremacy.
It amounts to a near-explicit declaration that black people cannot succeed unless helped by whites (who are themselves coerced to provide the help).
My grandmother -- white Southerner and loyal Democrat -- told me in the late Fifties, "You have to be nice to the Negroes. They can't do for themselves the way white people can." That's affirmative action in a nutshell.
Regards,
Ric
Tribal supremacy is a useful tool to keep a monopoly in power.
As King Obama says, Ruling a place that has a single Party rule like China is better...for the King. He can just do what he wants.
That is what supremacy is.
White has not been been a selfish ethnicity when in the majority, but rather welcomes all who play by the rules. But one of those rules is being broken which is equality before the law.
Out of curiosity, who created this video? Who is responsible for the subtitles? I was wondering where the selection and editorial content came from.
As an aside, I was rather disappointed that the crowd apparently thought that these pedestrian questions were home-run type gotcha questions. I thought that reaction was a pretty strong indictment itself.
He handled that quite well.
I realize that there are problems within certain communities, but to say, to use one race as this is what most are talking about, that Blacks can't accomplish things unless their white friends give them free stuff, is racist.
Now, if you had an affirmative action program that help low income people from North Milwaukee, that I can see as it doesn't assume that you need help just because of your skin pigment.
How do you escape the notion that choosing people on the basis of skin color as opposed to objective standards of acheivement is not condesending and racist?
Warlocketx is the thread winner.
Honorable mention to the the laser-like rhhardin.
Affirmative Action IS bigotry - if you still believe in AA, that would make you a postmodern racist. Period.
That reminds me that Black men in America have had the vote as citizens 145 years.
But white women in America have only had the vote as citizens for 80 years.
Male supremacy has been the problem.
"I was rather disappointed that the crowd apparently thought that these pedestrian questions were home-run type gotcha questions. I thought that reaction was a pretty strong indictment itself."
I was thinking the same thing.
Here is a lady who may be doomed to disappointment. She will learn some hard lessons, or maybe she will learn nothing and just have some hard experiences.
Madam, you will be judged by those who employ you. How that judgment is rendered is a function of your performance. Unless you go into government or academics, you will be cut little slack because of your color. (Indeed, government and academia may not cut you large slack either, though they may pretend to.)
I wish you all the best. Your success level is up to you.
By intermarriage.
When everyone's a minority ... no one will be.
"Out of curiosity, who created this video? :
Obviously, I did.
Ditto on Dont Tread.
As long as the white guys (and how many people really calling the shots on the Left aren't white or guys?), that's what Affirmative Action is.
Throw a couple of 'em a token job (like Michelle's in Chi-town) so they'll be willing shills and make sure the rest get enough crumbs to keep 'em placated.
Paul said...
Affirmative Action has been here for how many years???
Well HOW MANY?
Started in '66.
Fred4Pres said...
How do you escape the notion that choosing people on the basis of skin color as opposed to objective standards of acheivement is not condesending and racist?
Calling Justice O'Connor. Fred needs you to explain ....
First we'll make up a three part test ... then we'll weigh some stuff ... then we'll determine if its strict scrutiny or some rational basis thingy ... then we'll guesstimate how many more years of desicriminating against white dudes is constitutionally persmissible before we cross some threshold of unconstitutionality {that I just made up in my Justice head] ... then we'll fashion a limited, but fair remedy ... but not too fair cause then it won't work.
Bottom line.
Ya gotta make stuff up, Fred, and twist and turn, and tell simple folk that they are too simple to understand these complex concepts, so they better leave it to their betters.
I was thinking the same thing.
As was I
David said...
Here is a lady who may be doomed to disappointment. She will learn some hard lessons, or maybe she will learn nothing and just have some hard experiences
Hey, if Barbara Boxer can be a Senator, this young lady can too.
Just sayin.
With the simple assertion that all should be evaluated based upon merit.
If one needs to lower the bar for a group of people, how do you get away from the notion that that group is inferior?
If one truly believes in equality, one must believe that affirmative action is not necessary.
I could see, however, the argument that those who come from poverty or families with no college education may need extra support or consideration regardless of skin color but that is only available to minorities.
The future does not look bright.
"If one needs to lower the bar for a group of people, how do you get away from the notion that that group is inferior?"
You stamp your foot, wag your finger, and assert you've been disrespected.
Nice Ju-Jitsu!!
Didn't he paraphrase MLK with the "content of my character" comment at the end?
The gasping people picked up on the reference. I expected to see smoke pouring out of there ears.
"You disrespected me" and "I graduated from high school with honors".....which one of these statements doesn't belong.
Technically, getting rid of affirmative action is Asian supremacy
Looking at some of these excerpts it's easy to see why Althouse was kinda bored and dissatified with the whole thing.
Tank,
You may have just written the finest parody of Justice O'Connor's majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), that anyone has ever crafted. Well played.
To this day, I am still disgustd by this statement appearing in her majority opion: "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
To this day, I am still disgustd by this statement appearing in her majority opion: "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.
Definitely. What was the ethical calculus proof that ended up with "= 25"? I can see maybe 42 being the answer to a question like that, but 25?
Technically, getting rid of affirmative action is Asian supremacy.
Bada-BING!
You stamp your foot, wag your finger, and assert you've been disrespected.
...and you say "Me and all these other women..."
She was funny.
The audience seemed split, to me. One group was yelling about being disrespected and showing disbelief that Clegg would be content to be judged on his abilities and the content of his character. The other group was trying to shush the yellers so they could hear his answer.
Was the audience as divided as I thought?
"She was funny."
I'm sympathetic to her plight, but she's not going to get what she wants by bullying her detractors into silence. There's only one path to what she seeks (respect), but she disavows it.
This clip really shows that we are a nation divided.
She also used "diversities" incorrectly. "different diversities". Stupid. Diversity means "composed of differing elements". "Different diversities" would mean different groups of differing elements. Not one.
slarrow cuts through the pedestrian Q&A to the real problem on display: shoddy thinking. That shoddy thinking is built on an extraordinary degree of moral cynicism.
One fellow equates the absence of racial quotas with white supremacy. That's shoddy thinking. What is more disheartening is the woman who challenges Roger Clegg to support affirmative action so that white people will get theirs in return. And the audience applauded.
Recently David Brooks in The New York Times wrote about a study by Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith that demonstrated the inability of many young people to think intelligently about morality, ethics, and meaning in life:
In the rambling answers, which Smith and company recount in a new book, “Lost in Transition,” you see the young people groping to say anything sensible on these matters. But they just don’t have the categories or vocabulary to do so.
That poor young woman's moral standard is that of the mercenary. When Clegg responds by speaking in terms of moral principle, the audience laughs in derision.
Just imagine if anyone who wanted to could attend the school they wanted to and there were no artificial scarcity of slots.
That's crazy talk though because the only way to learn is sitting in a brick and mortar building and besides, what would we do with all the ethnic studies grads then?
I'm sympathetic to her plight, but she's not going to get what she wants by bullying her detractors into silence. There's only one path to what she seeks (respect), but she disavows it.
She has no plight. And as for her not getting respect...where did you see that happening? Claiming it doesn't make it true.
I think you are trying not to sound racist. Which is also funny.
Let me add to my comment that I'm pretty tired of people grasping onto that MLK quote the way Clegg does. It's not the only thing MLK said. And it's been turned into a cliche.
"slarrow cuts through the pedestrian Q&A to the real problem on display: shoddy thinking."
Another example: An inability (or is it a refusal?) to understand that Clegg is arguing for policies that will lead to the respect she demands.
The fact that she is the only African American to graduate with honors from he High school pretty much destroys her own argument does it not? Affirmative action which has existed for generations has quite obviously failed to achieve it's "stated" goals. I think it achieved a lot of unstated goals however.
You didn't listen to her very carefully, prarie wind.
Maybe the same way you escape the notion that having perpetual affirmative action is because you believe that some people really are inferior.
Maybe so Henry but it was the perfect answer. It absolutely should be a race neutral comment and apply to everyone equally. No one race should "own" it.
Maybe it is Asian supremacy.
Ever think about that?
Dang...Jamboree beat me to it.
:-)
vw: unpop. you can't unpop the balloon or unring the bell.
I'm glad to know that Althouse was responsible for the video. It was that final "What???" that threw me. I figured these were the options:
1) What??? Lyin' man said he wouldn't take no preferences? No way.
2) What??? Did he just invoke MLK for an anti-AA position? Cheap thief.
Those seemed pretty simplistic to me and at odds with the otherwise embarrassing display from the clip, but a fan of these questions could have been that clueless, I suppose. But if Althouse is responsible, then she's probably being sly to try to get a thinking response. She likes that.
The concept of white's "getting theirs" when they are the minority is laughable. When that day comes brace yourself for all the "economic inequality" and "social disadvantage" arguments. Whites will never be allowed to seek true minority status. It's a relegion now and the priests who control the oracle will never give up that control.
You didn't listen to her very carefully, prarie wind.
You're probably right. I stopped listening very hard when she said "Me and all the other women..." Or did I stop listening when she said she bragged about graduating with honors? I didn't take her very seriously, that is true. Was that disrespectful?
I've had a couple of crappy days. Sometimes my attention suffers when my life falls apart. And I graduated with honors, too. Why isn't my life perfect? Somebody must have messed me up. Can you see me wagging my finger?
"Can you see me wagging my finger?"
No one can see you on the Internets.
Affirmative action is white supremacy. It means latinos, afrodescendants and women(until recently) were not unable to reach the same standards of white males.So they needed to lower the standard.
Affirmative action is insulting.
Moral is to act as every person is and end and not a mean . Affirmative action is inmoral. Cultural diversity is needed to give the white elite a better education.So minorities are only a mean.
Some new Republic editor said that Universities nneds to create an enviroment like the students will find and that no one deserve to be admitted into school.
Lets take the colectivist approach: the society needs that the better minds get the better education .Giving the best education to some one unabe to proffit on it will damage the society. Of course that is valid for affirmative action and crony admissions too.
Easy: By keeping it in place you must believe that minorities are inferior and require bonus points to make up for this innate inferiority.
If you treat them color-blind based on their scholarly attributes alone, then you remove race entirely from the process.
Justice Roberts: The best way to get rid of racial discrimination in admissions is to get rid of racial discrimination in admissions.
Have these students really never heard these basic arguments against affirmative action? Or are they simply feigning surprised outrage?
The laughter that greeted the speaker’s honest claim that he would seek judgment on his individual merits, in a white-minority America, speaks volumes about the audience.
They have embraced identity politics to the core, and are cynical not just of the value, but of the very goal of treating every citizen as an individual. If these people, and this attitude, are our future, America’s fate as a second-tier country is foretold.
I thought university was for teaching, and such talks were for learning. Did anyone learn anything there? And if they didn't, why?
Maybe they don't want to.
Didn't we discuss the other day how A.A. is for people who don't have a real desire to learn?
"I'll sell my bonds." - Ronald Reagan
@FloridaSteve -- I don't disagree with you. MLK's quote perfectly captures the moral argument against discrimination (fittingly he invokes "character" rather than "talent" or "ability" -- a reminder that this quote was spoken in a much different ethos from our current one).
But the quote has become terribly overused. Clegg references it as a kind of shorthand and it only goads his opponents. They know the game. It seems less than sincere. Speak your own words from your own heart, man.
Something terrible that happened during slavery is that family bonds were systematically destroyed. I read once about a black slave whose children were forcibly removed and sold on the block. He died from grief.
I'd think that anyone with any familial love whatsoever would die of grief.
So what mighthave remained are those who didn't have much familial love. Family is the most enduring institution. It's a tough, durable institution. Without it, almost anybody has a severe disadvantage. I think this is how the confederacy kept blacks down for so long. They destroyed the black family.
And now whites turn around and say: why don't you people just stay together like the Asians and the whites?
I don't have an answer, but there is a problem that I think neither side really looks at head-on.
The disadvantage isn't so much about race, it's about destroyed family structures within the black community. Part of the white community did that to a big part of the black community. I wouldn't know how to fix it. There's no overnight fix.
Affirmative action looks at a consequence without looking at a deeper underlying atrocity that took place systematically for hundreds of years. Caribbean blacks didn't face the destruction of the family, and they do far better than American blacks, who faced the destruction of their families as a systematic tool of disempowerment.
For some reason, no one ever talks about this. But it's just obvious that there is a real problem within the black American community (or parts of it).
"They know the game. It seems less than sincere. Speak your own words from your own heart, man."
It was an appeal to authority and one he expected they would respect. They don't want to be convinced, they want to vent.
They don't want to discuss, they don't want to learn, they don't want to be fair. They want to win, period.
"Me and all these other women and men in here of different diversities ..."
If only attitude were enough but, unfortunately, it's not. UW plainly has its work cut out, but it's the attitude on display in this clip that may prevent it from ever getting done. Unless it gets done, moreover, this young lady will be dealing with the same "disrespect" she perceived in Clegg's position for a whole lot longer.
Wow. I'm glad I got out of the University of Wisconsin and the City of Madison a long time ago. From that video clip it must have been even longer ago than I had imagined...
This assertion ("you are disrespecting me!") seems to have a collision course with the old "sifting and winnowing" stuff on that brass plaque on Bascom Hill. Good luck sorting it out.
On the bright side, you got a killer football team!
Kirby, was the black family in similar crisis throughout the 20th century. I don't think it was, but I don't have any data on it.
"Have these students really never heard these basic arguments against affirmative action?"
Very few students encounter basic arguments against any standard liberal academic arguments. I noticed this back in grad school when teaching an intro politics course. Students in general don't go out of their way to engage most of the time, and their professors aren't interested in defending an argument they don't agree with. The result is students lobbing spitball arguments and thinking they're firing a bazooka. It's hard not to feel embarrassed for them. And when they're confronted with a counterargument, their response is usually something akin to a temper-tantrum.
They simply don't know why they believe what they believe. It's ideology passed on like religious dogma. They're never forced to reason to their conclusions. Their conclusions have been handed to them.
You can so sense the college age brain here. The need to say the cool sound bite, to be heard by your peers spitting out the dogma they all love, but have never really thought out in a critical way.
I was the same way at that age, when the brain is really good at sucking up stuff, and is doing it so fast that the ingestion alone is satisfying enough that one does not need to analyze. That comes later when your head is full of enough stuff see some contradictions.
Of course, some people are contradiction blind and it's chronic.
I taught in an historically black college back in the 1960s and early 70s. I asked my students then, before the term Affirmative Action was in use, what would happen after the last token black was hired in the last token position. It was rhetorical and meant to suggest that hard work and achievement might matter somewhere down the road. I was not "disrespecting" them when I said that. I would think that very few, if any, of my students could have gotten in at the University of Wisconsin. But all of my students were more articulate than the woman in the video. It is heartbreaking to see what little has been gained.
They simply don't know why they believe what they believe. It's ideology passed on like religious dogma. They're never forced to reason to their conclusions. Their conclusions have been handed to them.
Topic aside, one of the biggest complaints I hear from former college profs and people I know now that are teaching in secondary education is that the incoming students have almost no critical thinking skills. Nadda.
White supremacy?
Have they seen the SAT scores?
Have they paid attn?
Afirmative Action is select, annointed Whites makeing sure that their pet Black and Hispanic minorities are superior to the mass of unannointed Whites and Asians.
So, yes it is White Supremacy and in a sense it's Black/Hispanic Supremacy as well.
You disrespected me" and "I graduated from high school with honors".....which one of these statements doesn't belong.
I will ask again, have they seen the SAT scores?
"He was telling them, to their faces, that they were being stigmatized by affirmative action. In that light, the young woman's statement "You disrespected me" really is not such an inaccurate understanding of what he was saying."
I would suggest that it is not Roger Clegg that is "disrespecting" her. He's pointing out the ramifications of affirmative action. He's not responsible for them.
The video demonstrates that the UW students in attendance (of whatever "diversity"), are pretty damn dim.
incoming students have almost no critical thinking skills.
Based on that video, I'm worried about the critical thinking skills of the graduates.
If that talk was sponsored by the Federalist Society, should we presume that a large fraction of the audience consisted of law students? That would be truly disturbing.
"European Americans are going to become the minority. Don't you think that you're going to need affirmative action at some point in time?"
-- some girl
followed by
"Think about your children."
-- some boy
It sounds like a threat.
There was a similar threat offered by Tony Yapias of Proyecto Utah Latino, when during an interview by the local FOX news station he warned Americans to reconsider their opposition to illegal immigration, because they will be a de facto minority in the near future.
I wonder what some girl, some boy, and Yapias, think about a selective rule of law. Supposedly, it was to escape this institutional corruption, that people leave their homes and immigrate to America.
Why would any sane person acting in good faith support the establishment of the regressive regimes they left behind?
As for some girl, she clearly does not understand how people relate to each other and why there is conflict including discrimination. I really doubt she comprehends why the Tutsi slaughter the Hutu slaughter the Tutsi.
In any case, institutional discrimination (including affirmative action) must end. If people are concerned about discrimination after its abolition, then they can conduct the same survey as has the CEO group. Further appeals to emotion should be rejected as explicit extortion.
People like some girl, some boy, and Yapias are simply revealing their true nature when they denigrate individual dignity. The progressive classification of individuals according to their incidental features is regressive and counterproductive.
I'm glad to know that Althouse was responsible for the video. It was that final "What???" that threw me. I figured these were the options:
1) What??? Lyin' man said he wouldn't take no preferences? No way.
2) What??? Did he just invoke MLK for an anti-AA position? Cheap thief.
Those seemed pretty simplistic to me and at odds with the otherwise embarrassing display from the clip, but a fan of these questions could have been that clueless, I suppose. But if Althouse is responsible, then she's probably being sly to try to get a thinking response. She likes that.
"What?" is on the audio track. I used subtitles to make it clear what was being said, because the audio isn't that strong in places. I kept the "what?" in the end because I thought it was funny. Basically, your #2 is the right interpretation. They were expressing shock/faux shock that this man would appropriate MLK's line.
SAT scores?? There's a new part to the test that evaluates how well people conjugate nouns.
Kirby Olson -- the problem with the "slavery broke the family structure" argument is that it's simply not true. As I recall, blacks had FEWER single mothers than whites at the beginning of the 20th century.
Something terrible that happened during slavery is that family bonds were systematically destroyed.
...
And now whites turn around and say: why don't you people just stay together like the Asians and the whites?
Sorry, that just doesn't fly. In the first half of the 20th century black illegitimacy was lower than white illegitimacy today. So we're not saying "why don't you stay together like the Asians and the whites." We're saying "why don't you stay together like your grandparents did?"
I'm tired of people blaming me for their own lack of character.
Let us accept every argument put forth in favor of affirmative action--and some of them have merit. At what point can we say that the wrong has been righted? Is it three generations, four generations, in perpetuity? Is it even possible to put an expiration date on this program? That's what throws me. Nothing we can ever do will be considered sufficient payback. It will go on forever......My guess is that that young woman grew up in a reasonably affluent household. She will claim that all her comforts in life are due to her hard work and effort and that all her failings are due to racism. There is no combination of circumstances that will ever convince her that she is wrong in these beliefs.
This young lady confuses being patronized with respect, which is what Dr. Clegg was trying to point out. He respected her enough to think she would get it, and she took that show of respect for disrespect.
I doubt that she has ever felt respected by anyone, even when she does get it. Consequently, I doubt that she ever gives any back.
I suppose Althouse has the right to video-tape undergraduates exploring their ideas about affirmative action in a public forum at their home university and then post them on the internet, but that doesn't mean that she should do it. It's not good for the student, I think. It chills her willingness to express herself in her own educational environment. Maybe that is your goal. I also think it's cheap, and tacky, and mean. But gets you lots of traffic. You can cover the issue without throwing students under the bus.
"I also think it's cheap, and tacky, and mean. But gets you lots of traffic. You can cover the issue without throwing students under the bus."
In other words, these students aren't ready for the real world despite being adults, and when they speak up so that people will hear them and their ideas, we should censor them for their own good.
Now that's respect!
Richard:
"The video demonstrates that the UW students in attendance (of whatever "diversity"), are pretty damn dim."
That's probably because all of the science and engineering students were hard at work crunching numbers on their calculators or slaving away in the lab.
"European Americans are going to become the minority. Don't you think that you're going to need affirmative action at some point in time?"
I wouldn't want it. It would deprive me of self-respect. That's too high a price.
"European Americans are going to become the minority. Don't you think that you're going to need affirmative action at some point in time?"
-- some girl
followed by
"Think about your children."
-- some boy
It sounds like a threat.
Actually the "Whites are going to be a minority" thing only becomes true when you add the projected Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations. Something tells me that the Asians are probably not going to go along with that.
I think this is how the confederacy kept blacks down for so long. They destroyed the black family.
That simply isn't true.
The black family was in fine shape until the mid-1960s.
This is your brain on leftism.
Any questions?
rhhardin hit the nail on the head. If whites weren't superior, we wouldn't need affirmative action.
I would wager that in her lifetime, that diverse young lady has committed disrespect many more times than she has been disrespected. Especially against the melanin-disadvantaged.
The perpetual motion machine: An affirmative action program engenders animus against those people whom it favors. This animus is described as racism. This racism then becomes the reason why it is necessary for the affirmative action program to continue. It will go on forever.
Oh please the students who are "out there" who didn't get accepted by Wisconsin, or Yale or
Chicago, and there are thousands, if they have any grit can apply to other colleges, just as I did when rejected by Harvard, and get on with their lives. If they are successful they can apply again or transfer. This applies to the white students, as well as minority students-- remember some from that group were also rejected. And when I read a comment like: If whites weren't superior, we wouldn't need affirmative action, I realize why I am glad the UW encouraged diversity.
Oh please the students who are "out there" who didn't get accepted by Wisconsin, or Yale or
Chicago, and there are thousands, if they have any grit can apply to other colleges, just as I did when rejected by Harvard, and get on with their lives.
How can you say things like this, and then wonder, "what's the matter with Kansas? Where is all this middle-class white resentment coming from?"
I suppose Althouse has the right to video-tape undergraduates exploring their ideas about affirmative action in a public forum at their home university and then post them on the internet, but that doesn't mean that she should do it. It's not good for the student, I think.
You're right that these students are probably embarrassing themselves unwittingly by having their incoherent thoughts and incomprehension of counter-arguments posted on the internet for all Althousians to see and criticize.
You know what would prevent that from happening? The University of Wisconsin could provide them with an actual college education instead of letting them skate through in exchange for making the recruiting brochures more colorful.
Or, I suppose, they could just stop saying totally stupid shit in public forums. There's always that.
@roesch-v: Your point is all well and good in a world where only a few universities practice discrimination in admissions. But the fact is that nearly all colleges and universities outside California practice the same sort of discrimination.
The people who get shut out of Princeton (sadly unaware of their actual good fortune) because they were bumped off the admissions bubble don't go to Yale instead. They go to Michigan or Virginia or--poor bastards--Wisconsin. The people on the bubble at those places are then bumped down another level, and so forth.
Even worse, the notion that they were bumped solely b/c of AA (when that won't be the reason in a lot of cases, or even most cases) fosters the sort of bitterness and resentment that poisons society further.
William's comment @ 5:27 makes this point extremely well in terms of the putative beneficiaries of AA. The same point applies to those who bear its initial impact.
As she says she was and honor student she then goes on to use improper english. Of course she's just like the POTUS.
Shorter r-v: Let them eat cake.
The video - especially the student girl speaking the "different diversities" line - completely prove the anti- AA side of the argument.
And to think that there are kids who were 50 times more qualified with years of hard work behind them that deserved to be there instead of her.
Shit.
I hope some documentarian follows up on that girl over the next ten years, through her 3 fatherless kids and job at the DMV.
By the way, that's your tax dollars - your federal tax dollars (millions taken by the UW) at work on that girl.
Lastly - thank you Ann for filming and posting it. You have no need to feel any responsibility for showing a young adult (responsible at 18 - get it?) in a public meeting whatsoever.
Los Angeles Unified School District has it's own TV channel out here in SoCal. It shows all board meetings (and reshows them). I swear, sometimes one doesn't know whether to laugh or despair at the constant stream of District "professionals" and consultants who sound like they learned their broken grammar from hiphop academy and can barely string a sentence together. DOZENS of "preofessionals". These people could be on the Comedy Channel or in some Tyler Perry TV show.
Seriously. Sadly.
Get ready Wisconsin. It's only a matter of time . . .
More evidence of Democrats running government schools.
some people are more equal than others.
Why the hell should he respect her, if she got into the school based upon skin color instead of academic merit? Especially if she's willing / eager to be rewarded by such racism?
What does "with honors" mean (or, for that matter, "the only one", in the context she set up)? The speaker didn't say. That used to mean "cum laude," which standard implied a "magna cum laude" and a "summa cum laude" in even American education. Was she saying that she was unique in achieving graduation with any sort of honors at all? Or, what? Not only did she not specify, she set up obvious questions. There could be a legitimate "or, what?" of course. There are such. However, there is neither hide nor hair of a hint about that or toward that in what the young woman said.
He was concerned about her, but it wasn't a kind of concern she appreciated.
Well, boo-fucking-hoo. The same could be said of Glenn Reynolds, or you, when I'm the one doing the criticizing. (If something bad happens to Dr. Helen because big brains gets involved with quackery, who's going to be sorry then?)
Our "tribe," first and foremost, is American - not some silly skin color - and it's the women who are in denial about that, whether they can see it or not. Maybe they wouldn't get in without AA - fine, work harder - it's not like the admissions policy is arbitrary.
You know, like acceptance by a bunch of spoiled brat law professors.
Students in general don't go out of their way to engage most of the time, and their professors aren't interested in defending an argument they don't agree with. The result is students lobbing spitball arguments and thinking they're firing a bazooka. It's hard not to feel embarrassed for them. And when they're confronted with a counterargument, their response is usually something akin to a temper-tantrum.
They simply don't know why they believe what they believe. It's ideology passed on like religious dogma. They're never forced to reason to their conclusions. Their conclusions have been handed to them.
This. I have noticed this with many friends who have gone through college and graduate school during the last ten years or so. Many have become lesser critical thinkers and greater spouters of received dogma. That's scary.
Interestingly, it does matter which schools they attended. A private school in the state that is notoriously liberal, a label that may be unfair, does not seem to turn out dogmatic thinkers, perhaps because there is real intellectual diversity among its professors.
Thanks for recording these videos Ann. It's been over half a decade since I've been in college, so this was a good reminder of the type of disappointing behavior goes on at our colleges. Hilarious to see kids lashing out with indignation and anger when adults point out the implications of their own beliefs to them.
Captcha: duched (!)
We've had affirmative action for over 40 years - we're now talking about racial preferences for (in some cases) the grandchildren of the first beneficiaries of affirmative action! Enough is enough!
I was involved in the early debates over affirmative action at the University of California in the '60s - the debacle we have, full of euphemism and hiding race preferences under the rubric of 'diversity' (which is a sham), did not have to happen. There was another approach, championed by too few, that would have avoided lowering the University's admission standards for AA admits: by identifying potential AA candidates and sponsoring them in the better California junior colleges to (1) remedy any academic deficiencies and (2) demonstrate the ability to do UC level work through success in transferable courses. The support and remedial work would have remained at the junior college level where it belonged. As the AA kids demonstrated the ability to succeed at UC, they would then have been transferred on an equal footing.
Now, 40 years later, it's time to admit that affirmative action has actually denigrated the value of top university degrees held by minority candidates, and has led to the introduction of all sorts of risible 'studies' majors as substitutes for the rigorous education that decent colleges and universities used to provide in the humanities and social sciences as well as the hard sciences.
"Because the primary victims of affirmative action are Asian."
Simple answer to stupid question.
Wow... to the student audience. Wow. The ignorance is appalling. The lack of listening comprehension is appalling. Oh. My. God.
"Me and all these other women and men in here of different diversities ..."
And this young lady graduated from high school with honors? I would hope that a student at Wisconsin, one of the better public universities, particularly one who was an honors student in high school, would have a better functional grasp of standard English. What a tortured sentence.
Because Asians are greater victims of AA than whites. In fact they are even oppressed by language in these discussions. When the NYT wrote about the California Prop that restricted AA in state unis, they would always say that the number of "minority students" declined even though it actually remained the same. Asians were just substituted. So to commies, Asians at 4% of the populaion are not minorities but blacks @ 13% and Hispanics (who are mostly white btw) at 15% are minorities.
roesch-voltaire said...
Oh please the students who are "out there" who didn't get accepted by Wisconsin, or Yale or
Chicago, and there are thousands, if they have any grit can apply to other colleges, just as I did when rejected by Harvard, and get on with their lives.
Oh please. The black students who are "out there" who didn't get accepted by Wisconsin, or Yale or
Chicago, and there are thousands, if they have any grit can apply to traditional black colleges, just as blacks did before the civil rights movement, and get on with their lives.
Interesting how so many progressive lefty pieties sound racist if you just change a word here and there.
Herein lies the inherent contradiction of using race as an admissions factor in order to stop racism.
R-V, how does your petard fit?
The PAM model should be in force here:
Performance
Ability
Merit
- in that order. Performance can be observed and measured. It demonstrates Ability. Merit should be last on the list because it needs to be a tie-breaker, not a leading indicator.
Football, basketball, sports in general, all require PAM decisions with almost no Merit considerations. If the Quarterback is the team owner's son, I'd bet that's a losing team.
How do you escape the notion that getting rid of affirmative action is white supremacy?
By not assuming whites are superior.
Knowing of the radically absurd affirmative action legacy in the public universities in my state I would avoid reliance upon a Black lawyer or physician if given the choice. This may be unfair to some but in the absence of a better metric all one can do is to employ short cuts.
Racial discrimination promotes racial discrimination.
When I have to stop and wonder whether the person before me obtained their academic or professional credentials because of their skin color, or some other arbitrary and irrelevant criteria, it makes me far less likely to hire them.
Not because I'm a "racist" who wants to be mean, but because a racist policy has muddied the waters. When everyone is sized up using a different ruler, the measurement has no meaning.
This is why potential employers have begun using a person's credit history as a hiring tool. Credit agencies don't take race or sex or any other random criteria into account. They provide a cold and accurate description of that person's financial behavior. This in turn tells you exactly how responsible they are.
roesch-voltaire --
"And when I read a comment like: If whites weren't superior, we wouldn't need affirmative action, I realize why I am glad the UW encouraged diversity."
I could be mistaken, but don't you teach literature of some nature? You get the concept of sarcasm?
roesch-voltaire --
Oh please the students who are "out there" who didn't get accepted by Wisconsin, or Yale or Chicago, and there are thousands, if they have any grit can apply to other colleges, just as I did when rejected by Harvard, and get on with their lives."
But the minority students don't have such "grit"?
"European Americans are going to become the minority. Don't you think that you're going to need affirmative action at some point in time?"
Asian Americans already *are* a minority. They don't get affirmative action. Affirmative action, in fact, discriminates *against* them.
Competence needs no preferences.
Prof. A, you wrote: "The emotions of those who are not present may be expressed, vicariously, by others, but it's another matter entirely to say to human beings as they stand in your presence: Under my proposed policy — the only morally/constitutionally permissible approach — you lose."
The actual message isn't "you lose," but "you have to compete on your own merits."
And if that makes them cry ... tough. Cf. Wit & Wisdom of Jimmy Carter ("Life is unfair.")
I agree with Beldar and I'm glad he commented because I'm having a hard time getting past the female student's poor grammar. That Beldar agrees convinces me I'm not letting her grammar influence my opinion.
The 2010 census population data for WI:
White persons:86.2% -(USA 72%)
Black persons:6.3% - (USA 12.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons:1.0% - (USA 0.9%)
Asian persons:2.3% -(USA 4.8%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander:0.2% - (USA 0.2%)
Persons reporting two or more races:1.8% - (USA 2.9%)
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin:5.9% - (USA 16.3%)
White persons not Hispanic:83.3% - (USA 63.7%)
Is the WI university system obliged to increase minority participation above the ratios that already exist in the community?
If so, why?
Does a minority student from a well off family deserve the slot more than a poor white student? Who is really being disadvantaged in that case? Neither student is responsible for the circumstances of their birth.
Is it fair for an out-of-state minority student to pay less tuition than an in-state white student?
Is the university itself hiring to achieve a the same minority quota status as student admissions?
If you accept the premise of AA in the higher education system, then shouldn't every employer, private and public, be required to hire by quotas?
Every community should be required to adjust racial ratios in their governance, administration, schools, law enforcement, emergency services, medical facilities and courts.
All residential districts should be required to include minority housing in proportional ratios.
That's the problem with a quota system, where does it stop? Isn't some group always disadvantaged in some way?
What happens when whites are no longer the majority in a state? Are they then entitled to AA?
This question will need to be addressed in CA after the 2020 census. As of 2010, if Hispanics are broken out of the white population in CA; whites are only 40% of the total population.
Thankfully, as a society, we have moved beyond discrimination by race, gender, age, religion, etc. AA as it was originally conceived no longer serves us very well. We need to rethink AA.
However, as with many of our systemic problems, we cannot even discuss AA; let alone address the inequities AA is and will inadvertently create as we become a more multicultural society.
The woman uses "me" as a subject in a sentence and she allegedly graduated with honors. QED
I feel sorry for these kids, who are obviously not learning anything. Sen. de Mind said it best, "We all want say we want a color-blind a society... But we cannot have a color-blind society if we continue to write color-conscious laws."
You cannot help "minorities" achieve equality by enshrining practices that enourage dependency. You cannot battle prejudice by treating the soft bigotry of low expectations as normative.
I once was discussing affirmative action with a female fellow professor who vehemently challenged my assertion that hiring on the basis of race or gender stigmatizes those so hired, regardless of their ability. So I asked, "were you hired because of an affirmative action clause?" Disgusted, she said, "NO! And I resent the implication that I am underqualified. I was hired because I was the best candidate!"
Point, set, match.
I feel sorry for these kids, who are obviously not learning anything. Sen. de Mind said it best, "We all want say we want a color-blind a society... But we cannot have a color-blind society if we continue to write color-conscious laws."
You cannot help "minorities" achieve equality by enshrining practices that enourage dependency. You cannot battle prejudice by treating the soft bigotry of low expectations as normative.
I once was discussing affirmative action with a female fellow professor who vehemently challenged my assertion that hiring on the basis of race or gender stigmatizes those so hired, regardless of their ability. So I asked, "were you hired because of an affirmative action clause?" Disgusted, she said, "NO! And I resent the implication that I am underqualified. I was hired because I was the best candidate!"
Point, set, match.
That ugly black chick is about as stupid as they come.
Post a Comment