Liberalism has made racial homogeneity uncool and unacceptable. Even many conservatives are made uncomfortable by lily-white gatherings -- hence the enhanced value to the right of Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Condoleezza Rice, Linda Chavez, and any well-spoken Negro or Latino who consorts with the Tea Party crowd. That conservatives practice affirmative action even as they condemn it is a tribute to liberalism's handiwork.
August 16, 2010
"The true measure of affirmative action's staying power is that its absence now is virtually inconceivable."
Writes Harvard lawprof Randall Kennedy:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
127 comments:
Inconceivable to whom?
I have a dream.
Most people do not even know what Affirmative Action IS. I encountered this, myself, years ago when I found I did not understand it.
Hint: It does not involve quotas.
Well, that's Harvard speaking all right.
We elected a "well-spoken Negro". What is he talking about?
Oh geez.
This is wrong on so many levels.
I guess what passes for argument today is setting up a strawman and then knocking it down.
Wow, what a dick.
Alpha said: "Hint: It does not involve quotas."
No, just the soft bigotry of low expectations.
We're stuck on race which, as you will note in your voluntary check-boxes and the half-white Obama being called black, is not really about race but about skin color.
Yet what really impacts each of us on a day to day basis are character traits like kindness, generosity, industry, and honesty, which have no relation to or dependence on race or skin color.
But we're stuck - mired for these 40 years now - looking at an absolutely immaterial factor.
And that is a fitting tribute to a Pyrrhic 'victory' from liberalism's handiwork.
Most people do not even know what Affirmative Action IS. I encountered this, myself, years ago when I found I did not understand it.
Hint: It does not involve quotas.
Alpha,
Rather than playing 20 questions, why not explain to us what affirmative action is, or at least what you think it is, so we can actually discuss that.
And what is affirmative action? The process by which someone as accomplished as Condoleeza Rice comes to be viewed as only a token?
Even many conservatives are made uncomfortable by lily-white gatherings -- hence the enhanced value to the right of Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Condoleezza Rice, Linda Chavez, and any well-spoken Negro or Latino who consorts with the Tea Party crowd
More racemongering bullshit.
Skin color is as relevant as hair color.
But not to Prof Kennedy.
Alpha,
Rather than playing 20 questions, why not explain to us what affirmative action is, or at least what you think it is, so we can actually discuss that.
Please do Alpha. I need a good laugh today.
"Rather than playing 20 questions, why not explain to us what affirmative action is, or at least what you think it is, so we can actually discuss that."
Hell, yes, let me get some popcorn.
For the definition I prefer: affirmative action is a broad term for a range of policies aimed at increasing minority participation in various enterprises. Among the policies that the overly broad term "affirmative action" might apply is quotas. Other policies might be aggressive recruitment of minority applicants, giving special status for minority applicants, or changing or removing barriers to entry that appear to have disparate impact between ethnic or sexual groups.
Have I covered the gist, Alpha? Or do you have some other definition that suits you better?
Want to know who is totally unself-conscious about being racially pure? It’s the left. Ever been to a radical environmentalist meeting? I have. My wife is a member of the Native Plant Society. Guess what? It’s all white and nobody thinks anything of it. Ever been to a Prairie Home Companion live show? I have, twice—again the wife. Unless they are on stage, there are no blacks there. Yet, these groups have never been targets of affirmative action advocates.
When affirmative action was first proposed as The Philadelphia Plan, the justification was because the government (LBJ, overwhelmingly D Congress) didn't want to expend the time and money to enforce the Civil Rights Acts.
PS This is proof positive why we should be deporting people like this instead of Mexicans.
At least the Mexicans will do useful work.
Ken,
you have my deepest sympathies for being forced to endure a performance of Prairie Home Companion.
There is a difference between voluntary association, voluntary diversity and being forced to hire or admit people on a quota system irregardless of their actual qualifications.
Affirmative Action as a program was definitely needed in order to overcome the institutionalized discrimination by race, gender and ethnicity. It opened the doors for people who had been unfairly excluded.
However, Affirmative Action as a program is no longer needed and now has actually become an institutionalized agent of discrimination based of race, gender and ethnicity.
It should be done away with and soon.
Wow, this guy is really over the rainbow.
As for "quietude" on the part of Obama's administration, how does Ralph K explain the new federal rules for reporting employees' race in institutions getting federal money?
Some Will Have to Step Aside
Crappy patronizing.
Freedom can be a messy business. The Harvard Phds are top down systematic controllers. It seems that all free life looks like a mess to them and they want it revoked. The trouble is that when goodness depends on one man at the top's character, then he/she can do terrible damage. Whereas, a free system allows many cross balances from many leadership authorities...you know like the Constitution's separation of powers set up to stop Kings from ruling over us ever again. Can you imagine the damage that could be done by a stupid King like Charles, Prince of Wales. The Harvard professors would love such a ruler who falls for their latest buzz from faked research.
A black professor from Harvard writing a book on race relations and the Obama presidency. I think I know how it turns out.
At any rate, he's got it backwards.
Gee, I always thought the mark of success of a program to "fix a problem" was when the problem was "fixed" the program went away.
Affimative action is not important because Obama has destroyed the economy to the point where there no private sector jobs to compete for.
Mission accomplished!
from the article:
It enables racial-minority status for the first time in American history to be seen as a valuable credential.
If my house is burning down do I really care what color the face is behind the mask? Am I not more concerned that fireman can put out a fire and rescue me if needed?
And if I do care, then where does the racial problem lie?
I think Alpha Liberal had better explain affirmative action to Randall Kennedy before he explains it to us. Anybody who thinks that conservatives are "practicing affirmative action" when black people join the Tea Party is in sore need of an explanation. Do you suppose he thinks that the Tea Party hires its members?
And his assumption that Condoleeza Rice was an affirmative action hire is painfully revealing. Of course, there could be no other explanation, ever, for hiring someone with black skin . . .
Alpha: President Johnson quite nobly and correctly told the Federal government to be colorblind, yes.
Problem is, "affirmative action" doesn't mean that anymore and hasn't in ... decades.
These days it means having enough minorities of whatever sort to avoid criticism. It does not mean being actively colorblind.
I find it difficult to believe you really believe it still means what President Johnson meant and not what it's consistently meant these past few decades.
And by difficult I mean I don't believe it at all.
Well, cool. It's nice to know my nephew will be ablle to attend the same university as Malia Obama.
Provided, of course, his SAT score is 300 points higher.
Oh, and Alpha:
When the Chief says "goal," rank-and-file injuns hear "quota."
"'Inconceivable', I do not think that word means what you think it means."
"Liberalism has made racial homogeneity uncool and unacceptable."
I don't buy this premise. All liberal sanctimony has done is to sublimate the racism that still exists. Upper management in most corporations--places with the most extensive EEO statements--is still an exclusive club in which being a white male will put you at the front of the line for membership.
"...any well-spoken Negro or Latino who consorts with the Tea Party crowd."
Isn't "well spoken" a synonym for "articulate"?
I ask merely for information, in a spirit of inquiry.
As for affirmative action, to the University of Michigan it meant that minority status counted for five times as much as a 4.0 GPA, , almost twice as much as a perfect SAT score, and as much as if your dad bought a building or if you had a football scholarship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
To a father of Asian children, as I aspire to be, it means that the University of California system will find reasons to turn Asian students away and they will have to do far better than white children to get the same chance.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/05/uc
At my university, affirmative action is prohibited by law, so now we have each prospective student write an essay about how he or she will contribute to the diversity of the institution.
Randall Kennedy mistakes the media's fascination with counting people of color with republican fascination. that and a little bit of a desire see african american success, which is not the same as supporting affirmative action.
The hilarious thing is that the media doesn't do so well on the color issues. so for instance, when olbermann made his silly comment that there were no white people at the tea parties, more than a few people pointed out that there were no people "of color" in various pictures of msnbc's lineup.
Alpha
what the hell are you talking about? Of course it can involve quotas.
That being said, I did write this over at my own site on the New Haven firefighter case (which was adapted from comments here, but I don’t remember what thread):
> It also suggests that rather than taking the easy way out by quotas and the like that New Haven can and probably should engage in an aggressive program of developing African American firefighters to their fullest potential. So the affirmative action should be there, in the form of affirmatively finding black potential and developing it. Rather than ignoring what are more likely than not real differences in knowledge and ability, New Haven should instead work to erase those actual differences.
> Which is indeed what is so pernicious about the de facto quota they tried to establish here—it would have allowed New Haven to ignore the underlying reasons for the disparity, rather than address and correct them. It doesn’t do the people of New Haven or the black firefighters themselves any favors if they are promoted when they don’t deserve it.
http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-ricci-v-desteffano-aka-new-haven.html
"Gee, I always thought the mark of success of a program to "fix a problem" was when the problem was "fixed" the program went away."
Hah! No, the purpose of the program is to provide eternal employment to the people running the program. God help them if the 'problem' was ever 'fixed.'
He never had a black math professor, I guess.
I think we've moved well beyond Affirmative Action. Now it's open warfare on the white man, most particularly the productive white man.
In fact, Affirmative Action was a misnomer, that is, given the public's grasp of the Peter Principle. Trouble is, no amount of lipstick can redeem either of these pigs.
I live among hissy Libtards in Brooklyn Height, NY.
Hardly any "colored" in the society.
Also they have a fondness for adopting oriental children from far away ... very far away. Who cares about orphan black kids in the neighborhood.
Pricks.
Civil Rights legislations passed only because of the Republican votes.
I recall that opponents of affirmative action argued that it would cast a shadow on the true achievements of minorities. "No Way!" the liberals shouted. Yet I've heard Clarence Thomas referred to as an Affirmative Action hire. And Condi Rice. And who made those claims?
I think we have two separate definitions. In most places today affirmative action is a defacto race norming program. The language to invoke it is "underrepresentation", which implicitly sets the goal that all analysis groups (except whites, men and sometimes asians) must meet or exceed their demographic representation.
But there is a secondary definition, because the race norming definition implies that AA would end when minorities are no longer underrepresented. But Thomas Sowell spent a book chapter detailing evidence that this doesn't happen.
Program administrators have virtually unlimited ability to manage data. So they simply redefine the analysis group until they identify a method which yields the desired result. This results in an 85% minority federal government department making an "affirmative action hire". So in practice AA is simply group preference, the value of which varies based on each group's status in the historical grievance hierarchy.
Some decades ago, the Malaysian government, observing that most local businesses were run by ethnic Chinese, installed a sort of affirmative action program for the Malay majority, known as bumiputra or "sons of the soil." Among other things, the language of instruction was changed from English (a legacy of colonial times) to Malay, figuring that would give a small edge to the native speakers.
Well, the ethnic Chinese kids busted their asses to master Malay, and they still did better on exams than did the ethnic Malays.
Meanwhile, English remained the medium of instruction in Singapore, giving an edge to those who had mastered the world language.
So in practice AA is simply group preference, the value of which varies based on each group's status in the historical grievance hierarchy.
Where in that hierarchy would one find Native Americans that owned black slaves?
I've already wasted enough time today discussing the suspension of religious freedoms in the vicinity of the Twin Towers (and on the site of a former but still hallowed Burlington Coat Factory).
I mean, I could cite facts, but there's no point. Facts nearly never convinced a conservative.
And, yeah, conservatives are more openly racist than in years or decades. Going after Muslims, blacks and Hispanics. Suspending religious freedoms for Muslims, trying to repeal the 14th Amendment, attacking the minority-led ACORN, attacking Shirley Sherrod.
So you guys are openly racist but then you take offense when called on it. You can't reason with people like that.
"Where in that hierarchy would one find Native Americans that owned black slaves?"
Native Americans are second after blacks. Individual sins have no bearing on one's status.
@Alpha Liberal:
I mean, I could cite facts, but there's no point. Facts nearly never convinced a conservative.
bravely did Sir Alpha, Sir Alpha ran away...
Nice job calling everyone out and bailing, chump. Got a lot of yard work to get to?
He should check out the academic performance scores of young blacks, especially young black males.
The comparative performance of young blacks is a disaster. Proponents will say that this is in spite of affirmative action. I believe that affirmative action enables the underperformance of young blacks. It reduces pressure to take the radical steps necessary to improve educational performance by this group. It gives the young people themselves a sense that they don't quite measure up, and also that they will somehow be ok even if they don't perform well in school.
No doubt affirmative action has assisted some blacks in education and the workplace. Many of the people supposedly assisted by affirmative action (prominently Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Barack Obama) would have achieved their successes anyway, based on ability and personal ambition.
The broader impact of affirmative action is profoundly negative. It encourages stereotypes, diminishes personal responsibility and gives society--and especially liberals--an excuse not to do the really hard things, like vastly improving schools and reforming negative attitudes towards education in significant portions of black society.
Going after Muslims, blacks and Hispanics. Suspending religious freedoms for Muslims, trying to repeal the 14th Amendment, attacking the minority-led ACORN, attacking Shirley Sherrod.
That's hysterical. I do remember something about a white racist's administration firing Shirley Sherrod. I also seem to remember something about white people at ACORN embezzling money and giving advice on how to make underaged immigrants into whores.
As far as "going after Muslims, blacks, and Hispanics" (what...blacks don't get proper nouns? racist, I say), nobody "goes after" blacks and Hispanics more than the left if those blacks and Hispanics happen to be conservative. It's quite shameful the way they are treated and stark evidence that the left isn't about tolerance and inclusiveness, but rather about toeing the party line or else.
@Alpha Liberal,
Can you explain why the affirmative action program at University of Michigan thought minority status was five times as important as grades, twice as important as SAT scores, and as important as your dad buying a building or your playing football?
Can you tell us if that's an example of "real" affirmative action at work, or was what they did wrong in some way?
No, too busy calling people racist and then running off to do yard work.
So you guys are openly racist but then you take offense when called on it. You can't reason with people like that.
Or, perhaps, we've reviewed your alleged evidence for conservative racism and correctly concluded that your evidence is specious. Have you considered the possibility -- the likelihood! -- that it's you who are wrong?
I've already wasted enough time today discussing the suspension of religious freedoms in the vicinity of the Twin Towers (and on the site of a former but still hallowed Burlington Coat Factory).
I must have missed that, but what did it have to do with this thread.
In this thread you brought up AA, and how you knew the special, super-secret definition, that all of us benighted types weren't privy to. And now you want to bail without sharing with us what that definition is, or even pointing out how my, or one of the other definitions is wrong.
Is it a kona? Like the sound of one hand clapping? Are we supposed to flail around in our ignorance being insulted by you from your exalted position of knowledge, until one of us somehow becomes enlightened by your Olympian disdain? Is that how this is supposed to work?
I've got news for you, if you want to change minds, you need to do more than glide through, claim some special knowledge, drop some passive agressive insults and ignore anyone who responds to you.
Professor Kennedy also should get out more in his home town.
I've just returned from a week in Boston and Cambridge.
After a few days, I started asking myself "Where are all the black people?" In the commercial, tourist, retail and educational areas I was frequenting, just about everyone was white or asian. Virtually no blacks working. Even less playing. The absence of black people was striking.
I finally asked this question out loud to a few people.
Most people just shrugged. A few said "Roxbury."
Boston is an elitist's dream town--various elites dominate education, finance, money management, tourism, politics, international trade. These are the drivers of modern Boston.
Look outside the Cambridge bubble, Professor. Your city lacks diversity.
You can't reason with people like that.
Yes, it is impossible to reason with you.
Is it a kona? Like the sound of one hand clapping? Are we supposed to flail around in our ignorance being insulted by you from your exalted position of knowledge, until one of us somehow becomes enlightened by your Olympian disdain? Is that how this is supposed to work?
Ha! Let me tell you the koan of Alpha Liberal's Ax:
One day Barack Obama told his student Alpha Liberal, "I have two monks who have been here for many years. Go and examine them." Alpha Liberal picked up an ax and went to the hut where the two monks were meditating. He raised the ax, saying, "If you say a word I will call you a racist; and if you do not say a word, I will also call you a racist."
Both monks continued their meditation as if he had not spoken. Alpha Liberal dropped the ax and said, "You are true Zen students." He returned to Barack Obama and related the incident. "I see your side well," Barack Obama agreed, "but tell me, how is their side?" "Hillary Clinton may admit them," replied Alpha Liberal, "but they should not be admitted under Barack Obama."
I've already wasted enough time today discussing the suspension of religious freedoms in the vicinity of the Twin Towers (and on the site of a former but still hallowed Burlington Coat Factory).
For those of you who missed AL's lecture on the meaning of the Establishment Clause:
------
AlphaLiberal said...
To try to be as clear as possible about this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
1) It's the very first item in the Bill of Rights. By that placement we can interpret some level of importance.
2) Erecting a house of worship is as much an "establishment of religion" as can be found.
3) This prohibition also applies to local governments.
8/16/10 11:38 AM
------
After reading that, I was so looking forward to his explanation of "what Affirmative Action IS."
Can you explain why the affirmative action program at University of Michigan thought minority status was five times as important as grades, twice as important as SAT scores?
I can.
For young blacks as a group, these scores are terrible. An embarrassingly low percentage of black high schoolers can compete on this basis.
For a grotesque example of why, just take a quick look at the public schools in Detroit--and at Detroit in general.
Affirmative action has done nothing for the young blacks of Detroit. Their communities, the school system and the local government have utterly failed them. No one has the guts to say why, or take on the evil forces that cause this disaster.
But affirmative action makes the white liberals in Ann Arbor feel a lot better about themselves.
Instead of racial homogeneity we get ideological homogeneity which is not any better. But that's the world liberals have created, at least on the university campus and in the press.
Don't feed BetaLiberal's troll attempts.
One of the great signs of progress is that any gathering of white people is reflexively described as "lily white" by liberals like the Randall Kennedy, who would never dream of using a comparably demeaning descriptor of a gathering of blacks.
I can see why AlphaSockPuppet is mum about the union he works for. He wouldn't want his incandescent lies to be smeared all over his employer.
Why does he see homogeneity and affirmative action as opposites? Affirmative action is ultimately artificial, and initial seeding process, like training a vine. Does he believe the moment it is removed that things will spring back to their "natural shape"? That means at a very core level he has complete faith in homogeneity and considers diversity to be unnatural - just like a died in the wool racist would.
Personally, I think there's a time when you can take the braces off and your corrected smile will be even prettier w/o them.
Alpha
> I mean, I could cite facts, but there's no point. Facts nearly never convinced a conservative.
Until I see any liberal confront the AQ funding behind the mosque, I’ll take that as seriously as it deserves.
> And, yeah, conservatives are more openly racist than in years or decades. Going after Muslims, blacks and Hispanics
Um, “Muslims” are not a race. In fact stating they are, is itself racist.
> Suspending religious freedoms for Muslims,
First, 1) preventing a person from waiving a white flag in a specific spot is justified suspension of freedom, 2) pretty much everyone else denouncing this mosque has not argued as I have in favor of it.
> trying to repeal the 14th Amendment,
No one has tried to repeal it—at least not the whole thing. And in fact most of it doesn’t address race in any way.
> attacking the minority-led ACORN,
Ah, so voter fraud and support for prostitution is okay if you are in a mainly minority organization.
> attacking Shirley Sherrod.
Who outted herself as a racist. So in fact, you are DEFENDING racism with that one.
> So you guys are openly racist but then you take offense when called on it.
You haven’t made a case for anyone being openly racist. You are simply saying that these facially colorblind issues are a pretext for racism. Even if true (and you have yet to prove that), that isn’t open racism. Its hidden racism.
And that alleged hidden racism doesn't actually exist.
I mean, I could cite facts, but there's no point. Facts nearly never convinced a conservative.
Yeah, that's a fail.
Runaway, runaway!!
I'm not convinced AL isn't AA using AL as a way to drive up EB's and CL's.
ah, i was unclear. i said:
> 2) pretty much everyone else denouncing this mosque has not argued as I have in favor of it.
i meant to say most of the other people arguing against the mosque have conceeded their right to build it, but asked whether it WAS RIGHT to build it.
So you can see i really f---ed up the thought there. my bad.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Suggest you guys get back to the focus of the blog post. In my own words I would describe it as:
"Why should Repubclians have to pretend they are anything BUT a party of white, Christian, heterosexual people?"
"Hey, WE use tokens, so it only stands to reason that conservatives use tokens, too!"
What a revealing projection.
Alpha
yeah, pay no attention to when YOU outted yourself as a racist.
King's dream morphed into a nightmare in which the exact opposite of what he had dreamed took place.
No one thinks about character anymore. If they did, they would never have elected Obama. On the basis of his friends Wright and Ayers among others, and his associations with ACORN, his character would be so sketchy as to be unelectable.
McCain had a better track record, and a better character, as evidenced by his behavior in the Hanoi Hilton.
If character had been the true criterion, McCain would have won this race.
But "Yes We Can!" meant, yes we can elect on demographic criteria, without any reference to character whatsoever.
Alpha Liberal just wants to roil the waters, no matter the subject.
That's what Alpha Liberal does for a living...
Condi and Colin must be affirmative action hires cause liberals wouldn't hire or enroll blacks unless forced to, so surely repubs wouldn't? And if colleges and universities are sooo liberal and progressive why do they need the fed gov't to compel them to enroll students (minorities) that they would enroll anyway?
The sad truth is that most conservatives base their associations upon merit regardless of skin color whereas liberals base their associations based upon self righteousness and elitism.
NYTNY:
No, not really. I come here as a long-running experiment where I collect data to see if the Modern American Conservative is capable of honest debate or susceptible to facts, reason or logic.
The null hypothesis stands strong as conservatives demonstrate blatant dishinesty and brush aside facts and data. Evidence to the point here, from "Mrs Whatsit", at 11:57:
"And his assumption that Condoleeza Rice was an affirmative action hire is painfully revealing. Of course, there could be no other explanation, ever, for hiring someone with black skin . . ."
That's me she's talking about.
This is a crudely dishonest statement. "affirmative action" are the 5th and 6th words in the title of the blog post we are, ostensibly, commenting upon. So she is blaming me because...? It's too stupid.
And, the first line of Ann's excerpt (remember Ann?) is a hoot:
"Liberalism has made racial homogeneity uncool and unacceptable."
So, racial homogeneity - is it cool or not?
2) Erecting a house of worship is as much an "establishment of religion" as can be found.
That is hilarious. Thanks for providing the link, I wasn't reading that thread. Priceless.
And I responded to it at the thread.
AC245 is cross-posting from another thread here, where I tried a little play on words. So I respond here:
I understand that the establishment clause is about, in part, creating a "national religion."
Like, and necessarily, it is also about not favoring one religion over another. Which involves not disfavoring one religion.
The right wing seeks to favor Christianity and Judaism over Islam. They seek to disfavor Islam and circumscribe geographic areas where Muslims may [or may not] worship and by restricting the ability of Muslims to build houses of worship.
It is a highly dishonest claim that the US Constitution grants anyone in government the power to stop any religious building from being legally constructed.
But, hey, there is a law professor in the house. By all means, Ann Althouse, please lay out the Constitutional foundation you perceive for prohibiting a house of worship from being built.
[We know AC245 is not up to the job].
@Alpha Liberal:
I had some questions for you about affirmative action, as it is implemented, which you still refuse to answer.
Instead, you prefer to ask questions like
So, racial homogeneity - is it cool or not?
Not when imposed by the government. Now answer mine.
@Alpha Liberal:
By all means, Ann Althouse, please lay out the Constitutional foundation you perceive for prohibiting a house of worship from being built.
Learn to read. Ann didn't call for prohibiting anything.
Can you really not see the difference between prohibition and disapproval? You really are a totalitarian at heart! Everything not forbidden is compulsory, right?
It is a highly dishonest claim that the US Constitution grants anyone in government the power to stop any religious building from being legally constructed.
But, hey, there is a law professor in the house. By all means, Ann Althouse, please lay out the Constitutional foundation you perceive for prohibiting a house of worship from being built.
And as I responded in that thread:
-----
"First, neither Althouse nor I have made that claim.
Second, I have neither the time nor the inclination to remedy your apparently vast ignorance on the structure and workings of the various levels of government in the U.S.
And third, thanks for providing some laughs. You're hilarious when you run out of talking points and have to go off script and try to argue things on your own."
------
Now, perhaps you'll regale us with your interpretation of "what Affirmative Action IS."
(Alternately, explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes, and how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.)
Gabriel Hanna, you are funny.
In one post you order me to answer your questions. In the next post, you insist I am the authoritarian.
ha ha!
So Republicans are not trying to stop the mosque from being built. Interesting. You are now saying they are fine with it being built? What is the point of publicly disapproving of it if not to stop it from being built?
What's all the hubbub about then?
Again, the blog post is about why the Republican Party can't just be all white.
Alpha, that's ridiculous. Of course I was not referring to you in that remark about assuming Condoleeza Rice was an affirmative action hire. I was referring to Randall Kennedy -- you know, the guy this thread is about, the one who actually SAID that Rice, among others, was an affirmative action hire. Amazingly enough, he was not only the one who said it, he was the one I was criticizing for having said it. Not you. You DIDN'T say it. So I didn't criticize you for it. I just suggested that perhaps you could share your affirmative action expertise with the good professor, who needs help from somebody. Got it?
However, you apparently did say this: "2) Erecting a house of worship is as much an "establishment of religion" as can be found."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
@Alpha Liberal:
In one post you order me to answer your questions. In the next post, you insist I am the authoritarian.
My jackbooted thugs who have ways making you answer questions.
You are now saying they are fine with it being built? What is the point of publicly disapproving of it if not to stop it from being built?
Again--why can't you understand the distinction between prohibition and disapproval?
For example, should it be against the law to be a drunken asshole at a friend's wedding, or at a child's birthday party? If I say I disapprove of those things, is that the same as calling on the government to arrest people who do them?
You really are stupid.
When are you going to answer my question about the implementation of affirmative action, you cowardly little fascist? I answered yours.
@Alpha Liberal:
Let's help you out.
prohibit: To forbid (an action, event, commodity, etc.) by a command, statute, law, or other authority; to interdict.
disapprove: The reverse of to APPROVE: to regard with disfavour or moral condemnation; to feel or express disapprobation of.
Both from OED.
part of my ongoing experiment to see if you can comprehend written English at the seventh grade level.
The true measure of affirmative action's staying power is that its absence now is virtually inconceivable
While I am not going to read this entire piece, I will take a risk and say that this conclusion is wrong. The correct conclusion is that the true measure of the mandatory ethnic diversity's staying power is that its absence now is virtually inconceivable.
FLS: The Republican party has to be a party of white people because the people of color in the party are demonized, dehumanized, mocked and dismissed as inauthentic by the whities on the left. The Republican party could be half black and the left would consider it a white party because there aren't in the wise opinion of many, if not most, liberals "real" blacks. Note that the Harvard whiz distinguished blacks in the Republican camp as "Negro" and "well-spoken." Interesting and predictable tell from a leftie.
Gabe:
You and Ann think your distinction makes a difference. I don't.
Ann said:
"For example, I'm a big supporter of freedom of the press, and I don't feel the slightest bit hypocritical condemning something stupid I read in the newspaper. "
Well, that's a false analogy. The proper analogy would be "I believe in freedom of the press but think you should stop publishing."
But, on further consideration, you may have a point. Simply because Ann Althouse has been fanning the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry and assigning collective blame for 911 to all Muslims, it doesn't mean she wants the government to shut it down. I get your point, which I may have glossed over.
So, you and Ann may publicly spread hate against the Muslims, you may call for their mosques not to be built, you may blame them all for 9/11 but that doesn't mean you are opposed to freedom of religion.
Got it.
FLS - "Well, the ethnic Chinese kids busted their asses to master Malay, and they still did better on exams than did the ethnic Malays."
The issue of the right of a native majority to control their own country's destiny is a vexing one when it is in context of a highly successful immigrant group that seizes the levers of political power and economic control.
AA is a minor tool. Most times it isn't that subtle.
It's been played out many times. Colonialists booted, Chinese booted out or "checked" from taking control of several SE Asian countries, Jews booted since ancient times from lands where they had taken too much control - again and again. Stalin "semi-peacefully" checked the Jews of the Red Terror when he Russified the Revolution - booting Jews out of dominance of the Central Committee and the senior operatives of internal security apparatus. Unfortunately, Stalin thought the whole Red Terror structure was rather neat, he had risen through it as a non-Russian, so he kept it and sort of "doubled down" on what the Bolsheviks had been doing. (But Stalin at his worst never matched the slaughter levels of 1921-23)
It is ongoing. Just a few years back, Brits & Americans and the UN were panicking over a modest war that threatened to become near-genocidal between Indian immigrants and native Fijians as the economically dominant Indian elites tried a coup to take control of Fiji. And the Fijians arose and got the military and police back in their control and were talking making Fiji "Indian-free".
Cedarford: And don't forget Idi Amin (sic?) in Uganda who expelled the Indian merchant class. The result was no merchandise. For quite a while.
Affirmative action is like swerving to keep from running off the road. If you don't straighten out the wheel afterward, you just run off the other side.
As Obama says, we are in the ditch, and should keep the keys away from the ones who drove us here.
Remember in November.
And don't forget Idi Amin (sic?) in Uganda who expelled the Indian merchant class. The result was no merchandise. For quite a while.
The hell you say...Forrest Whitaker did no such thing.
Even many conservatives are made uncomfortable by lily-white gatherings -- hence the enhanced value to the right of Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Condoleezza Rice, Linda Chavez, and any well-spoken Negro or Latino who consorts with the Tea Party crowd.
Blacks have always been susceptable to the theoreticians like Alinsky of the progressive Jews, Michael Harrington the socialist, that America should be divided and then impowered along lines of race, class, gender.
There are many conservative and moderate blacks. But all are convinced they would be demonized as Toms and Jemimas if they broke loyalty to the Democratic Party.
Repubs would love more blacks. It is not that blacks are afraid to join with other conservatives and moderates - It's they are afraid to be demonized by fellow blacks, progressive Jews(who set up many Fronts for blacks run by progressive Jews under the Dem brand- like the NAACP, CORE) , and Leftists for leaving the Democrat Plantation. That is why you see them engaging in so much bashing of blacks and Latinos in the Republican Party - it's classic Bolshevik, Alinshyite shaming tactics to properly cow subjugated people into proper behavior.
Hint: It does not involve quotas.
Only because quotas, per se, on the part of a state actor, were found to be unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds. They were tried, on multiple occasions, but were just too blatant to survive. I have no doubt that if liberals could get away with racial and ethnic quotas, they would use them.
The reason I have not gotten into defining "Affirmative Action" is that it is a phrase with many different definitions used by many people and groups. (See "socialism")
Affirmative action, in my experience and in the human resources context, means taking action to reduce racial and other imbalances in employment. So, for example, job vacancies are also advertised in publications reaching under-represented audiences.
I don't see how that's objectionable. Especially when the hard cold statistics of disparities by race and gender are so stubborn and persistent.
Conservatives might ask themselves if they are opposed to every action taken to address racial inequities. That often seems to be the case.
"So, for example, job vacancies are also advertised in publications reaching under-represented audiences.
I don't see how that's objectionable."
Ah, the old canards. AA wouldn't be objectionable if this were what it meant. But in truth AA means much more including race preferences: applying different standards to people based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. So this is a pathetic misdirection.
But there really isn't any point to this conversation. You can't have a serious discussion with people who refuse to address the facts.
Uh, not really, Marshal. You're making that up.
Alpha:
I would like to see your comments concerning the University of Michigan's AA efforts mentioned above. Were they reasonable? Did they constitute unconstitutional discrimination? Are you arguing that advertising in publications aimed at minority populations is the only reasonable AA? What other AA methods do you find reasonable and not constitutionally objectionable? Personally, I have no problem with the government seeking candidates from unrepresented groups, but I have a big problem with giving a group "bonus points" in the UM manner. What do YOU think?
UNDER-represented would be closer to my intended meaning.
The reason I have not gotten into defining "Affirmative Action" is that it is a phrase with many different definitions used by many people and groups. (See "socialism")
Affirmative action, in my experience and in the human resources context, means taking action to reduce racial and other imbalances in employment. So, for example, job vacancies are also advertised in publications reaching under-represented audiences.
I don't see how that's objectionable. Especially when the hard cold statistics of disparities by race and gender are so stubborn and persistent.
Conservatives might ask themselves if they are opposed to every action taken to address racial inequities. That often seems to be the case.
There, that wasn't so hard. As I said above, affirmative action is a broad term that can apply to a number of policies. I'm sure you can see how "taking action to reduce racial and other imbalances in employment" might involve quotas.
Of course, quotas are illegal, but things like "targets" and "goals" that look remarkably like quotas have a way of popping up as a way to measure the outcome of other affirmative action policies. For instance, "disparate impact" is often considered when the amount of a given minority doesn't match the overall demographic in the populace. That kind of requirement, that for instance, any proportion of blacks less than 13.5% is evidence of discrimination, sounds a lot like a quota to me.
As to whether conservatives oppose all efforts to increase minority involvement in various enterprises, I think that assertion shows how little time and respect you actually give to conservative argument. Many conservatives, like for instance, Jeb Bush, have given a lot of thought and effort into creating less racially noxious affirmative action programs. However, you are correct that there is an element of conservatism, led by the likes of Ward Connerly and Thomas Sowell, that has principled opposition to any kind of affirmative action, especially race based ones. Their arguments are pretty persuasive, based as they are on the notion that affirmative action is actually enshrine into law the idea of racial inferiority. Considering your interest in Affirmative Action, you might consider reading what they have to say.
the lesson from the U of M cases is while one's ethnicity may be a factor considered for admission, it cannot mean the difference between getting in or not.
California's citizenry abolished affirmative action several years ago. UC Hastings Law School looks to see if applicants have overcome hardship to get where they are today, and gives such a boost. But this is irrespective of race.
This point has been made by others, but it bears repeating. Some people are more diverse than others. Asians, poor whites, Evangelicals, ethnic Catholics, veterans, disabled mimes, et al ad infinitum: such status does not make you diverse. Only groups within the Democratic Party base can qualify for diversity points....One of the challenges that a meritocracy faces is to keep their heads upon their shoulders and not upon the pikes of the peasants. It is their pretty little fiction that affirmative action disarms rather than intensifies racial friction. The French aristocrats thought that their frivolous lives were a rich source of amusement for the underclass. So they were. Life is a learning process.
David asked:
"Where are the black people when he went to Boston?"
Heh. I ask myself the same thing after watching almost every episode of Law & Order. The show seems to be mostly about upper class white victims and murderers. Isn't NYC like 40% minority??
And the show's producer is about as liberal as could be. I guess he does not care to hire black actors?
Now if the Southern Poverty guys or the NAACP guys would just get on board the train.
Woot-Woot
"The true measure of affirmative action's staying power is that its absence now is virtually inconceivable."
Translation: It's so entrenched and institutionalized for blacks to use it from now on, that our compassion towards our lessers will be forever recognized.
AL;
Affirmative action, in my experience and in the human resources context, means taking action to reduce racial and other imbalances in employment. So, for example, job vacancies are also advertised in publications reaching under-represented audiences.
I don't see how that's objectionable. Especially when the hard cold statistics of disparities by race and gender are so stubborn and persistent.
and previously posted:
I could cite facts, but there's no point. Facts nearly never convinced a conservative.
I'm not sure the first is a "fact" but its certain only a singular example. You said you'd cite fact"S"
Well cite away. You have the floor sir.
The author equates "racial diversity" with "affirmative action".
It is, indeed, weird for a large gathering of people to be monoracial, but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. It is weird because society is multiracial. My coworkers are mostly non-white, but none owe their positions to affirmative action. That I am white, and they are non-white, is purely coincidental. It says nothing about us as people.
If you came right out and said "we don't have enough [race name] people here, we should hire more", we would stare at you like you'd grown a second nose. Nobody thinks like that, save perhaps for some HR functionary hoping to meet a quota. That says to me that not only is the absence of affirmative action conceivable -- it is assumed.
@William:
Disabled mimes? Now you're talkin'!
" former law student said...
the lesson from the U of M cases is while one's ethnicity may be a factor considered for admission, it cannot mean the difference between getting in or not."
Did you really mean this? A rule that a factor can be considered but can't be the difference between acceptence and not is indistinguishable from not considering it at all. Of course it can be the difference, and in many cases was. If you recall the school president claimed that the proposed MCRI amendment would drastically reduce the number of minorities accepted at the school. How could this be true if race was not the difference between getting in or not?
The Michigan cases effectively set the rule as "you can consider race but you have to muddy the waters enough that were not embarassed".
Affirmative action has created institutional and indivdiual vested interests in maintaining racial animoisty and separation.
It has created an industry and bureaucracy of professional victims.
It continues the psychological conditions of slavery by making the white society responsible for the lives and welfare of people of color.
It realistically and accurately calls into question the qualifications of anyone who is able to benefit by affirmative action policies.
It corrupts the basis for decent social interactions among equals by destorying the equality of standing that is fundamental to authentic communication.
It has made it impossbile to think or speak clearly about skin color or race in the United States.
It provides an endless series of excuses for failures to perform to reasonable standards (see Maxine Waters).
It has been a social disaster for all of us.
Alpha...It is yourself that sees racial distinction s behind every opinion but your own. What the heck is the "Hispanic Race"? And what the heck is the "Islamic Race"? There are ethnic differences that we all accept and mutually respect and today. That is not any where near being a Race issue. How about showing as mutual respect to the "Christian Race"? The over indoctrinated educational establishment wont kick you out for doing that...or will they?
A rule that a factor can be considered but can't be the difference between acceptence and not is indistinguishable from not considering it at all.
It can't be weighted so heavily as to predominate over other factors, as it had for the undergraduate school.
As long as merit is described as "score on a standardized test," there will be a place for affirmative action in America.
As long as merit is described as "score on a standardized test," there will be a place for affirmative action in America.
Because the last thing we want to do is hold black people to the same standards we hold everyone else to.
That just wouldn't do at all.
The shallowness and the approximation to inanity in Alpha Liberal's and Former Law Student's posts are always a surprise to me. Can anyone actually be that stupid?
They never seem to actually unerstand the issues or what is being argued.
" former law student said...
As long as merit is described as "score on a standardized test," there will be a place for affirmative action in America."
It has never been the case that scores alone dominate. That you believe so reflects both how the establishment must lie to make its case and your willingness to accept whatever is fed you. Applicants grades have always been a larger component of acceptance criteria. Standardized tests attempt to ensure schools aren't gaming the system with grade inflation. They are a component, not the definition of merit.
When you have to make such ridiculous assertions for your conclusion to hold, its a good bet you're wrong.
"It can't be weighted so heavily as to predominate over other factors, as it had for the undergraduate school."
And you interpret this to mean it cannot be the difference between getting in or not? Or do you routinely lie hoping some readers will simply accept what you want them to think without bothering to learn the facts?
the lesson from the U of M cases is while one's ethnicity may be a factor considered for admission, it cannot mean the difference between getting in or not.
That's ridiculous. Fun fact: Obama's first school (Occidental college) has an average SAT score basically identical to that of black students at Obama's second school (Columbia). You're jumping a couple of tiers of school by checking the "black/African-American" box on your application.
UC Hastings Law School looks to see if applicants have overcome hardship to get where they are today, and gives such a boost. But this is irrespective of race.
How gullible are you?
And you interpret this to mean it cannot be the difference between getting in or not?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize what people meant by Affirmative Action was "a tiny factor that might occasionally tip the balance in one's favor."
It has never been the case that scores alone dominate.
It's never been the case that skin color alone dominates, either.
Glad we got that off our chests.
Because the last thing we want to do is hold black people to the same standards we hold everyone else to.
I'll say it again: the first IQ tests (before the term IQ was invented)-- the Army Alpha -- showed that Americans of English ancestry were the most intelligent while Jews were among the least intelligent. Now do these results confirm your biases or do they indicate a problem with the test?
I'll say it again: the first IQ tests (before the term IQ was invented)-- the Army Alpha -- showed that Americans of English ancestry were the most intelligent while Jews were among the least intelligent.
Yes, yes: "the Army once administered an invalid standardized test, therefore all standardized tests are suspect". You do indeed keep saying this, and it keeps not being a rational argument.
fls says in part "I'm sorry, I didn't realize what people meant by Affirmative Action was "a tiny factor that might occasionally tip the balance in one's favor."
Of course this isn't how AA works, that's just what liberals tell other liberals they should all pretend to believe.
In fact studies done on university acceptances show that selective institutions routinely and massively tip the scale. In one study the average merit characteristics for black acceptance would result in white acceptance 1 in 254 times, and zero asian acceptances.
At UVA the numbers were 1 in 200, and again zero. So maybe you should learn something before criticizing others.
And it's sad to see someone equate racial discrimination with test scores. Is giving someone an A because they score a 95 offensive? Is giving them an A because they're white? So why pretend not to know the difference? If your conclusion requires you to not understand the difference that's a pretty good indication it's wrong.
So maybe you should learn something before criticizing others.
I tried to follow the links in your post but they didn't come through.
And it's sad to see someone equate racial discrimination with test scores.
It's also a bit depressing to see someone equate course grades with scores from standardized tests.
Test scores, grades, and race preferences. One of these things is not like the others.
I'm not sure why you think your education is my responsibility. If you want to know what's going on pay attention. If not just continue to support the boilerplate liberal mantra.
Of course, the reverse is also true. RGC politics is really not about RGC but about the similarity of thinking of various people which is absolute homogenity disguised as diversity.
So both sides operate from within the other's rubric. PC pretends to be open, but is the most closed society imaginable. There is absolutely no room for diversity of thought within this crowd.
I have a long post, quoting an earlier long post, on "the inscrutable Randall Kennedy" here:
http://www.discriminations.us/2010/08/harvard_laws_randall_kennedy_s.html
Hmm. The comment didn't seem to take the whole URL. So, if you'd like to read the long post I just tried to link, go to www.discriminations.us and scroll down until you get to "Harvard Law's Randall Kennedy: Still Inscrutable." If you go quickly you won't have to scroll far.
Post a Comment