Affirmative action in the University of Wisconsin System and state contracting would be abolished or significantly scaled back under legislative proposals to be taken up today by a committee of state lawmakers and citizens.(Do some people figuratively grow up in another country? Apparently, yes.)
One measure would draft a constitutional amendment that would prohibit state agencies and public universities from granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin....
Other proposals, crafted by Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), chairman of the Special Committee on Affirmative Action, would:
• Require racial or ethnic minorities applying to the UW System or state contracting agencies to prove they are at least 25% that race or ethnicity to receive preferential consideration.
• Require racial or ethnic minorities applying to the UW System to demonstrate "knowledge or experience" of their racial or ethnic group to receive preferential consideration. If applicable, the applicant would have to demonstrate proficiency in a language other than English.
• Prohibit the UW System from considering the race or ethnicity of an applicant unless the applicant proves that his or her family makes less than 400% of the federal poverty level ($80,000 for a family of four)....
David Giroux, a spokesman for the UW System, said there was a "compelling need for diversity" in public universities and that it would be a shame for the Legislature to move against affirmative action, which he described as a "divisive issue."
"Diversity benefits all students, improving the quality of their education and their prospects for career success," he said.
Grothman disagreed.
"I think it's racist to imply that I'm going to learn something from you because your great-great-grandparents came from someplace else," he said. "Unless you literally grow up in another country, you're an American just like everyone else. You follow the Packers, eat McDonald's, and share the same tastes as everyone else."
I understand Grothman's point, that diversity-based admissions ought to connect to some real diversity that the student will bring to the classroom. But isn't his solution worse than the problem he cites? We're going to ask students to prove what percent of a race they are? That's really ugly, worse than abolishing affirmative action altogether I would think.
Posts
42 comments:
Diversity benefits all students, improving the quality of their education and their prospects for career success,"
I’m glad to see that someone has finally thrown the BS flag on this statement. I’d like to see some concrete evidence that somehow I’m a smarter and better person because someone of a different complexion sat next to me in class.
Now if you want diversity then having say, Africans in class (Congolese, Ivorian, Sudanese etc) then you’ll have true diversity. There will be some actual cultural differences we can discuss and learn from. What special enrichment do I get from sitting next to another American whose only difference is our skin color? Diversity IMHO is more than skin color. If my classroom consists of all white people and 1/3 of them are from Poland, Germany, Ukraine, France, Spain and Norway, would that not constitute diversity? Or 1/3 Asian from Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam? One of the reasons IMO that race will always be a problem child in this country is that we continue to self-segregate ourselves into African-American, Asian-American etc rather than simple Americans. If we can get beyond hyphenating our nationality perhaps we won’t need things like AA.
I don’t have a problem with diversity; I have a problem with it being a codeword for excusing the admission of individuals into schools and the workforce solely on the basis of someone’s race.
I want to argue against the racism of AA programs, but I've grown ambivalent re the entire university system. I had to carefully explain to a college grad last weekend "why America hated the communists so much". He wasn't asking as a rhetorical ploy, he honestly didn't know.
One measure would draft a constitutional amendment that would prohibit state agencies and public universities from granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin....
How could anyone oppose this with a straight face.
Sloan asked: "How could anyone oppose this with a straight face."
Just watch.
"How could anyone oppose this with a straight face."
Once the race/class/gender industry gets to work on it, the idea of no preferential treatment will be made to seem like the prelude to apartheid.
Require racial or ethnic minorities applying to the UW System to demonstrate "knowledge or experience" of their racial or ethnic group to receive preferential consideration.
Is it just me, or is that crazy talk? Are we going to require them to sign a contract saying they'll pass on that knowledge to caucasian students too? I mean, think of all the minorities getting away with stealing caucasian kids' opportunities while not contributing to Real Diversity!
And how, legislatively, do you even test or draw the line on "knowledge or experience" of their ethnic group, if language fluency is NOT applicable? Is it like a citizenship exam? And are we talking about MLK Jr., or are we talking about Tupac? Should minorities effectively be punished for their parents/teachers failure to teach them about/pass on their culture? Are we creating another minority from existing minorities, who the UW will demonstrably discriminate against because they're just not "diverse" enough?
I'm fairly ambivalent about affirmative action--but this just sounds ridiculous. Guess that's why my eyes tend to glaze over when I see the name "Grothman."
I agree that some students can benefit from a diverse learning experience -- especially if their chosen field will require cross-cultural interactions. I'd think a savvy multi-national company would not hire those ignorant of other cultures because it would just mean more training for the new hires.
I don't have much patience for whiners who lament that it isn't fair. That goes for people lobbying for AA and those lobbying against it. Life isn't fair. This should be a University decision, not one that is micromanaged by the Legislature. My possibly forlorn hope is that the University decides to admit or not a particular individual based that person's merits -- which may include things beyond GPA and SAT scores -- not solely because they need x amount of type y person.
Mr. Justice Harlan, in his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, wrote "There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guarantied by the supreme law of the land are involved."
These words should be the standard by which so-called Affirmative Action programs are judged. Scholarships based upon need, without regard to race, would be permissible and, for other reasons, should be encouraged. But for a State institution to admit a less-qualified student because of race should be regarded as illegal.
In the area of State-connected contracts, requiring a quota of minority participation increases costs, and penalizes the legitimate more efficient low bidder. Offering aid, counseling, and perhaps "set-asides" for small businesses, without any racial or gender test, achieves any goal of broadening access for the underprivileged.
I think it’s a good idea to require an evidentiary hearing, where the burden is on the applicant to prove he is, for example, a funky negro.
I recently visited a campus of the University of Wisconsin System and there were far too many men walking around looking like this.
Something must be done!
(Still, the entertainment was pretty good.)
One of the justifications for "diversity" is that diversity in and of itself is necessary for a quality education; Perhaps that is true in terms of learning to interact with others. Is anyone aware of any studies that identify a correlation between diversity and educational achievement? Or is diversity valuable primarily for its socializing role. (my google searches came up empty).
Maybe if we can eliminate affirmative action for whites, such as legacy admissions and other preferences, then we can get rid of affirmative action.
Wisconsin has one of the highest percentages of African Americans in our jails, high Af-Am infant mortality, and Grothman wants to believe racism is in the past? Dream much?
By the way, I learned years a go, a lot of people don't even understand affirmative action. It's not quotas.
"Affirmative action" as practiced in universities is little more than a tool of the ultra-liberal faculty and administration to ensure enrollment in the race/class/gender-studies programs and maintain the proper "ratios," which are themselves a product of the same warped views incorporated into laws and guidelines.
AA is declared to be good because it leads to diversity which is declared to be good because... Well, there is no because, just invalid assertions based on hot air. Nothing of any substance shows that education's version of diversity has ANY positive benefits. The effects of same, in fact, tend to be consistently negative.
Smoke and mirrors, shuckin and jivin...
Wisconsin has one of the highest percentages of African Americans in our jails, high Af-Am infant mortality, and Grothman wants to believe racism is in the past?
Why is this evidence of racism? Why is it black crime or black infant mortality constitute racism in your book rather than say, an issue within the black community that needs to be addressed by the black community?
Why is there a higher percentage of infant mortality and how is that racism? Are black children banned from medical care that is afforded to everyone else?
Hoosier Daddy: the argument usually trotted out is based on Socioeconomic Status; lower SES folks tend to be afflicted with those issues. The pro AA folks suggest that it is racism that keeps the black folks down.
To my simple way of thinking, focusing on SES which is the most important correlate is color blind; actions taken to raise SES irrespective of the ethnicity, would constitute the solution (but that solution is attacked as "failing to recognize the problem.")
"We're going to ask students to prove what percent of a race they are? That's really ugly, worse than abolishing affirmative action altogether I would think."
If one isn't required to prove a racial identity, does that mean when my kid applies to college he can check 'Native American' on the basis of family legend?
Because like all Texan families we claim to have an 'Indian Princess' in our family tree.
The southern states used to have group identity determination as a governmental function.
When we as a country decided to get serious about that 'all men are created equal' business these identity boards were abolished.
It's clear that many, perhaps a majority, of clients of the United States want to return to a system where group identity is an important consideration in hiring, admissions, licensing, and other interactions between government and individuals.
If we are going to treat people unequally on the basis of their family backgrounds, then I see no fair way other than establishing official group identify status for each occupant of the United States.
Without an official government established group identity then anyone can be anything just by checking a box.
The government must either treat all its clients equally, or it must establish official group identity for each client.
There is no other way.
Maybe if we can eliminate affirmative action for whites, such as legacy admissions and other preferences, then we can get rid of affirmative action.
Given that whites are the majority, we'll talk about eliminating anti-white discrimination first. If you don't like it, move to some country that doesn't have majority rule.
There are, in any case, no "legacy admissions for whites". There are legacy admissions for people whose ancestors or relatives attended the elite institution in question. Furthermore, I doubt the University of Wisconsin HAS legacy admissions. Few public universities do.
As for these alleged "other preferences", I'd love to hear what they are.
To Alpha Liberal's point about AA not being quotas--I agree; if done correctly it should be about expanding the pool of entrants as widely as possible. And certainly no administrator would ever specify some quota system. However, the dirty little secret of AA is that the results by which its success is measured end up looking very much like, yes, quotas--groups measured as a percentage of some population.
More conservative students would be nice, as in ideological diversity. Load the public universities with Thomas Sowells and Michelle Malkins and then, like Reagan, we could all enjoy the jellybeans because then at least there would be a fighting chance of a real conversation in the classrooms.
I just don't see how anybody can get any kind of education when half the country's ideology can't be expressed in the classroom by token of political correctness.
Diversity as it's presently practiced is just a code word for more of the same: dittoheads with an invisible red star on their caps.
SHAME ON YOU! Apparently many here have forgotten why affirmative action was created in the first place. It's not about past wrongs, but about present wrongs. Cure them, then maybe you could work on curing the problem without affirmative action.
If we weren't continuing to create a need for affirmative action, you could get rid of it.
But we are continuing to create one:
Consider this very real example from a chapter on the Navajo reservation that I visit once or twice a month.
In Birdsprings chapter, there are dozens of homes which have never been hooked up to the electric grid, part of over 18,000 homes on the Navajo reservation with no electricity (in 1986 the Reagan administration announced the phaseout of the Rural Electrification Administration because rural electrification would be by the end of the phaseout in 1994 '99% complete.' The other 1% is almost all on reservations, so as usual American Indians get the screws (and yes, they do pay Federal taxes.)
Students from Birdsprings often ride the bus up to 120 miles per day (60 each way) to attend schools in the Flagstaff or Winslow unified school districts. This means they get up to catch the bus at 5 or 5:30, and get home about 6 or 7, so in the winter it is dark when they get on the bus, and dark when they get off the bus.
The school districts they belong to not only assign homework (which it is true they can do using oil lamps) but sometimes require computer assignments. The only publically available computers they could use within an area covering hundreds of square miles are five of them at the chapter house, but due to budget constraints it is only open during business hours Monday through Friday.
Hence, when given a computer assignment, they have to choose between not turning it in (in which case they will get a zero on the assignment) or skipping school to go to the chapter house to work on the assignement (in which case they get marked down for missing all their classes.) Laptops are not an option (even if they could afford them) because coverage is very spotty or non-existent on the reservation (you can see that youself next time you see an ad for cell phone coverage-- look where the holes are). So the students do poorly in class because they are being taught a 21st century curriculum at school but have nothing beyond 19th century technology (oil lamps) to actually do the work when they get home. So they get marked down for either not turning in work or for missing class (take your pick) and are at a competitive disadvantage in terms of university admissions, scholarships, etc. despite not being any less smart, dedicated or motivated than people who simply aren't forced to lose out in a system which is in effect designed to discriminate against Navajo students.
This problem is not unique to Birdsprings, but Birdsprings is a community with which I am well acquainted. But the same sorts of problems exist throughout the reservation, and for that matter on many other reservations.
So, it is amazing to me that a bunch of hypocritical people can pontificate about ending affirmative action when they sit there, enjoying the benefits of a public infrastructure system that was built for them (including by the use of taxes paid by people who still don't have infrastructure), but push for taking away one of the few tools that the world still has left for rectifying the inequalities and wrongs that are still being perpetrated today to hold people back, whether by intent and evil design, or by willful neglect.
As I said, I know these people and I know this community. I could tell a great deal more about how they are the epitome of why either affirmative action or a major investment of funds are still needed, but I know-- all the 'ideology first, "but it's the principle of the thing, not the reality" arrogant S.O.B.'s' will simply sit back and claim it is all about some new way you can spell 'social Darwinism.'
Furthermore, I doubt the University of Wisconsin HAS legacy admissions.
Correct. Too bad for my kids. I went here. So did my parents. So did all 4 of my grandparents. So did one of my grandmother's uncles (back in the 1870s).
But my kids will have to earn their way in. No small feat coming from Madison, as one of the criteria, IIRC, is class rank.
Eli notes: "So, it is amazing to me that a bunch of hypocritical people can pontificate about ending affirmative action when they sit there, enjoying the benefits of a public infrastructure system that was built for them (including by the use of taxes paid by people who still don't have infrastructure."
Public infrastructure is called a common good and provided by government; no one is prevented from using it irrespective of who paid for it. And if you were to examine the situation in Birdsprings and compare it to other very rural and isolated communities, you might see quite a few parallels about the hardships imposed geographic constraints.
That said, I agree that a role of government is to right wrongs and eliminate wrongs that you allege are still being perpetrated today.
I think what some of may be saying is that affirmative action as it has evolved is not working and not the correct was to proceed. You may regard that as hypocritical; but please tell me how affirmative action is the appropriate policy response to the very real issues that face the Birdsprings community.
But my kids will have to earn their way in. No small feat coming from Madison, as one of the criteria, IIRC, is class rank.
In fact its much harder to get into Madison today than 20 years ago. It used to be "let more people in and fail more people." Why did they drop this strategy.... Now they are trying to be elitist.
It's one of the reasons why I don't donate money to the UW.
Roger:
As for geographical isolation, most communities that lack electrification on the reservation are no more isolated than other small western towns (which they had no problem building lines to). I'd agree that the original commitment by the REA to build a grid which would supply every community in America wouldn't extend, for example, to some hermit living off on top of a mountain, but that isn't the situation here.
As for affirmative action being the solution-- I would agree that it is a band-aid, that the real solution would be to complete the electric grid (which would also allow them to operate a pump, hence drill wells, and hence also have running water.) But since the pace of electrication on the reservation has been at a snails pace (so that for a small chapter like Birsprings it is likely to not get there for at least a generation or two), and a band-aid is better than nothing until what needs to get done is done. And specifically, affirmative action ends up compensating for the direct harm that pushes these students down when they suffer the kind of discrimination that exists there.
Apparently many here have forgotten why affirmative action was created in the first place. It's not about past wrongs, but about present wrongs.
I assume the "present wrong" you're talking about is that fact that blacks and Hispanics of college age tend not to be smart enough or well-educated enough to compete with whites and Asians for college admissions.
I'm all for curing that wrong, too, inasmuch as it can be cured. But ignoring the problem by pretending the applicants AREN'T dumber and less-educated doesn't right the wrong -- it magnifies it.
No more eloquent words have been written on the subject than these: "To pursue the concept of racial entitlement - even for the most admirable and benign of purposes - is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred," Adarand, 515 U.S. at 239 (Scalia, J., concurring) and there is without any doubt "a moral [and] constitutional equivalence[] between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality. Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law." Id. at 240 (Thomas, J., concurring) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted; alteration in original). "The lesson of the great decisions of the Supreme Court and the lesson of contemporary history have been the same for at least a generation: discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society." A. Bickel, The Morality of Consent 133 (1975).
Simon, I liked this! Thanks for it.
In terms of a grid that Eli brought up, why doesn't the reservation use wind power and set up their own local generators?
I used to think the Democrats were right about things when I was much younger. But somehow their solutions always make things worse. I read a neat book called Canarsie about an Italian area of Brooklyn that didn't want projects or bussing as it was busting up their neighborhood and causing white flight. The book was written by a liberal. But he came to the conclusion that the Archie Bunkers of Canarsie were right to hold out against having their neighborhood destroyed by upper class Democrats. The Democrats tried to force projects and bussing through, but the Italian mafia said keep it up, and see what happens, and the school board backed off and the neighborhood remained intact. It's still a solid middle-class neighborhood with nice smaller homes and only one or two projects while around it in every direction is the result of the Democratic solution: ghettos and crime and utter poverty. Everyone who was middle-class including the African Americans in those neighborhoods fled.
Bussing in general didn't work: it just made people open charter schools or try home schooling.
And I think Affirmative Action has just made it seem that minorities can't get anywhere unless they're helped because they're otherwise too stupid. This is what Justice Thomas and others have argued.
It seems that every final solution the Democrats come up with causes more and more problems...
Having a big heart but no brains doesn't really help anybody.
The Democrats have big hearts but no brains.
Diversity benefits all students...
Absolutely. The blacks become smarter and the whites learn rhythm. You'd have to be a racist to disagree with that.
The Democrats have big hearts my ass!
What is it that a community really needs to learn? It's not algebra or French but morals. If a community has a few basic morals it will prosper. I'd suggest these three:
1. Stay within the law.
2. Have a work ethic.
3. If you get married and have kids, stay married and raise your kids.
If you don't follow these three precepts it will never matter how much money the Democrats dump on your neighborhood, it still won't work.
And if the community follows those three precepts, it won't matter what anybody does to you in terms of racism, etc. Your community will blossom and prosper no mstter what. (Or so I seem to think!)
This is what makes the difference between Asian communities (which follow these three rules) and other minorities (which mostly don't).
Money isn't even the beginning of prosperity. It's morals, and those aren't taught in universities. They're taught by example at home.
That's the cycle that has to be changed. Am I right or what?
"Consider this very real example from a chapter on the Navajo reservation that I visit once or twice a month"
The Navajos are a sparse population spread over a vast area of mountains and desert. Many are semi-nomadic herders. It's hardly a sign of federal indifference that electricity and wi-fi aren't provided for every sheep-camp.
Of course any child growing up in these circumstances is going to have to overcome educational handicaps. But the government has provided boarding facilities like the Santa Fe Indian School, with amenities that can't practically be made available on the open spaces of the reservation.
Eli Blake's argument fails completely when applied to urban minority populations.
Apparently many here have forgotten why affirmative action was created in the first place. It's not about past wrongs, but about present wrongs
Present wrongs, like public education? Its funny how those that support AA also oppose school choice via vouchers.
There is a simple way to handle this. Eliminate the University of Wisconsin. The fact that we still have public universities and public schools in this country is disgusting. It's simply a form of welfare. And there is absolutely zero reason for the taxpayers to subsidize something that a private university can handle on its own. It's quite obvious that private universities are vastly superior to public ones.
And once we only have private schools, they can have whatever admissions criteria they want.
If they want to favor legacies, that's fine. If they want to favor minorities, that's fine too. And we can leave the courts out of it.
revenant:
Apparently you did not read the rest of my post. It was a specific comment on a specific community that I spend a lot of time in. However, given the opportunity, you'd find that blacks and Hispanics (as well as Native Americans) aren't dumber than whites, but rather lack the opportunities to succeed. Read through my post.
Kirby: They've discussed the possibility of setting up a wind farm, but the cost of completing the grid there is $760,000 (since parts of it are already built) but the cost of creating a wind farm, generator and then still putting line to the homes in question would be in excess of a million. Next question?
riikka:
Bologna. Reread my post. The people in Birdsprings are far more moral by most measures than most Americans; they pray a great deal and spend a lot of time teaching respect for the elderly and other values that we as a society have forgotten. One concrete number I can show you: census data for Birdsprings is right here: http://birdsprings.nndes.org/cms/kunde/rts/birdspringsnndesorg/docs/517490678-07-15-2005-11-58-55g.pdf You will note that there are a total of nine divorced individuals in the entire chapter (less than 2% of the adult population.) I guarantee you won't find that kind of number in many American towns, neighborhoods or communities off the reservation. So if traditional morality were any measure of success, their kids should all be going to Harvard instead of struggling in school because the school expects them to use resources they don't have access to.
tjl: The people in the community I cited are not nomadic sheepherders. They've been living in the same site built homes for decades.
Fen: The problem with vouchers (a separate issue) is that the proposals I've seen for them are to reduce public school funding proportionately. Sounds fair, until you consider that it still costs just as much to pay the janitor to clean the floor, to pay the electric bill to heat the building, and to pay teachers unless you actually have so many fewer students that you don't have to hire as many (but in small rural schools that have one or two teachers per grade level that is unlikely). Buses still have to be run on the same routes they are run on, whether they are full or not (combining routes is not feasible in rural areas since the routes go out in different directions and they may end many miles apart from each other.) Further it is hard to see how vouchers would solve the problem I alluded to.
However, given the opportunity, you'd find that blacks and Hispanics (as well as Native Americans) aren't dumber than whites
It is an scientific fact that the average American black or Hispanic is both less educated and less intelligent than the average white or Asian. The only thing there is to argue over is (a) why and (b) what's to be done about it.
but rather lack the opportunities to succeed
An obvious crock of shit. I graduated from a public high school that was fifty percent black. The honors classes I took were open to people of all races, yet were almost all white. The few black guys I regularly had classes with were harassed by the other, dumber black kids for "acting white". The only opportunity those kids lacked was the opportunity to be raised by people who gave a shit about their educations. Short of forcibly removing a large percentage of the black kids in America from their parents -- anyone advocating that? -- there's nothing to be done about that problem. The only problem black America faces is that black American culture sucks.
"After 30 years of Democrat help, the Black American can thank liberal social programs for:
1. Welfare programs that keep some blacks from attaining middle class status.
2. A dumbing down of many younger blacks that encourages them to equate good grades with whiteness.
3. A welfare system that encourages a single parent households. In 1994 for example, 70% of all black children were born out of wedlock.
4. A culture, influenced by liberal ideology, that accepts if not endorses irresponsible fathers and violence towards women.
5. A society that pity’s blacks for continual failure, yet does not accept this from any other minority or immigrant group.
6. Convincing blacks that everything bad that happens to them is race related."
http://www.carnellknowledge.com/democrats-and-blacks/
Eli Blake - Apparently you did not read the rest of my post. It was a specific comment on a specific community that I spend a lot of time in. However, given the opportunity, you'd find that blacks and Hispanics (as well as Native Americans) aren't dumber than whites, but rather lack the opportunities to succeed. Read through my post.
Spoken like a true artifact in a 60's timewarp advocating busine and affirmative action as "exciting new opportunities to succeed".
Revenant answered you one way, I will another way.
The more we study gene pools and anthropology, the more we see that racial and ethnic differences are not "just skin deep" but express in deeper, more profound matters. Drugs that are effective in whites do not work for black patients. Chinese have far better than average abilities in spatial perception. Infant development time differs by race.
Jews are smarter than blacks or Mexicans or Slovenes, on average.
You will never see anything but blacks dominate sprints. And the lack of black swimming champions is not from lack of swimming pools in minority neighborhoods where they "can succeed" - its that blacks, on average are dramatically worse swimmers than whites or orientals.
Hispanic is actually a fake race created by two liberal Jewish lawyer-scholars tasked by Richard Nixon with setting up the EEO. The two also had curious ideas who Asians were, and why who was an "official Pacific Islander race member" follows no logic at all.(Their second artificial race - Filipinos and Indonesians are not Pacific Islanders but Samoans are). They also, with no Congressional vote and the deciding vote of the vapid Sandra Day O'Connor later - designated the caucasions of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh as "Asian as Chinese".
Another genius stroke was saying that pre-Columbian stock was "Native American" if they lived in American terrotory except for their Talmudic hair splitting over Native Americans who happened to be on islands in the Pacific - if they had 1/32nd such ancestry - but that 100% Native Americans from south of the Mexican Border were "Hispanic only."
No one honestly believes there is no difference in all the world's ethnicities, and all disparities explainable by "cultural racism", "discrimination", lack of opportunity.
It's dangerous to pretend otherwise that it boils down to racism and a lack of opportunity for white sprinters or black math whizzes - or affirmative action quotas can easily go into ethnicity and gender even more than the feminists now stupidly advocate for. We now have the DNA tools, the computer network abilities - to control, if we want - who may be selected every job, school slot, and jail slot based on acceptable quotas of genders, Jews, blacks, Chinese Filipinos, Malay Filipinos, white Cubans, Arab Brazilians. Billionaires, each income - based purely on proportionality to the population to legislate "pure" equality.
Because, obviously, not all whites, Asians, or blacks or fake race Hispanics, etc. perform or succeed at the same level and society can do little to change that with mandates without final quotas being tools.
No need to stick to the tool's Nixons EEO founders set up when technology is now light years ahead in ability to enforce "equality" in all aspects of society and reward or punish disparities.
There is a simple way to handle this. Eliminate the University of Wisconsin. The fact that we still have public universities and public schools in this country is disgusting.
I think this should be considered by the State. It's not like they throw much $$ towards instruction anymore. The UW was established so all citizens of WI could get an education, yet it's laughably hard to be admitted now. I think the technical colleges -- and some UW branch campuses -- now fulfill the role the UW is supposed to fill. The State should zero out all money to the UW and divert that money to Public Schools -- or education at that level. That would be bad news for Madison's economy (and mine!), but it would adjust over time.
A few thoughts here:
1) Is there really a problem with so-called reverse discrimination because of Affirmative Action, or are Grothman and the like just fighting for these changes because it's, you know, a leftist liberal welfare-state policy?
2) UW-Madison has become pretty tough to get into. I'd prefer that they limit admissions from students outside the state and nation in favor of Wisconsinites (which I suspect they do anyway, in some fashion). But even more of a problem, is that I suspect it's really become a place to sustain post-grad level research and specialties rather than a general secondary educational institution. The UW System has relegated that task to the branch campuses (which are very good schools in their own right). I don't know if this is a bad thing or not. It may be a good thing for the UW System and the state.
3) I dislike Grothman. He's my State Senator and he won his seat from former Senate Majority Leader Mary Panzer primarily for her perceived failure to pass the Taxpayers Bill of Rights measure. She, a life long conservative Republican, was deemed too liberal (or at least not conservative enough) by Grothman and others. And because I live in a decidedly conservative area, once Grothman beat Panzer in the primary, I get stuck with his caveman policies as my representative in the State Senate. I didn't like Panzer much, but I can't stand this guy. Maybe my feelings about him color my reception of his Affirmative Action policy, but I have hard time receiving anything Grothman says rationally.
Is there really a problem with so-called reverse discrimination because of Affirmative Action
I guess that depends on how many people need to be denied admission because of their race before it becomes a problem.
For me, the number is "one".
Eli, you didn't mention work ethic. I was waiting for Riikka to bring this up, but...
I think she meant that you have to have all three of her criteria for a successful community. Otherwise, the cake falls flat.
So, why didn't you mention work ethic?
I am a college educated black women, I do not live in Wisconsin but while I was reading this I woundered one particular thing? If the shoe were on the other foot would you be so vocal about this? In other words if blacks were not able to enroll in this University, would you fight for civil rights? Do you know what I think? I do not think you care about equality. It sounds like you only care if your opportunities are taken away from you. If this was 1960 would you fight for social equality? As long as racism is not hurting you it is not your problem but when it is hurting you all of the sudden look who is talking. You all make it sound as if you care about real equality. From what I read on this post, it sounds like you can care less
"I do not think you care about equality. It sounds like you only care if your opportunities are taken away from you."
If that is supposed to refer to me, I challenge you to quote anything I wrote that supports your view. Did you even read the post?
Post a Comment