... and that in addition to his book "Some of My Best Friends Are Black: The Strange Story of Integration in America," he's written biographies of 2 white male comedians, John Belushi and Chris Farley. Here's a HuffPo piece that had him going on about how he has no black friends, even though he's totally liberal and lives in NYC. He's "never even been inside a black person's house." So that's his background. Why he's the person to declare and explain the failure of affirmative action and to propose a solution, I do not know.
Does Slate know? Obviously, Slate's publishing the article boosts Colby's stature as an expert on this topic. It's why I'm reading Colby's piece. But I can see the reasons why Slate would publish this. It knows its readers are mostly white liberals, and it's easy to guess that they're susceptible to the narcissistic question: Where are my black friends? (Obama counts as one friend, but he's always so busy.) And Slate's headline is one of the most egregious pleas for traffic I have ever seen: "Massive Liberal Failure on Race: Affirmative action doesn’t work...." Massive! Liberal! Failure! Race! The righties will not be able not to link to this, I can hear them chuckling. And maybe, oozing in around their self-loving liberalism, they believe that plenty of their regular readers, the good liberals, feel secretly aggrieved about affirmative action.
I don't care about Colby's version of history. ("That Richard Nixon was racist is well beyond dispute....") I just want to examine the "new solution" part:
Racial preferences may have taken black America into a socioeconomic cul de sac, but you can’t just tear up the road and leave people with no way to get out. Fortunately, the one thing the left does have is the leverage and the political capital to end affirmative action in the right way. Right now, the Democratic party and the racial justice movement are sitting on a junk heap of racial preference programs that aren’t doing anyone much good, and they lack the substantive programs they need: a true, New Deal-style reformation that repairs the infrastructure of our cities, ends mass incarceration, provides access to early education and paid family leave and job training and other programs that put all of black America on more solid footing. Since Republicans seem to want affirmative action gone so badly, if it were me, I’d be out horse trading.Do Republicans want out of affirmative action? I know some conservatives like to talk about wanting to arrive at colorblindness, but much of that is political rhetoric. The GOP is not a unified entity, but even if it were and that entity were hungry to end affirmative action, it would be ludicrous to see that goal as equivalent to a giant liberal wish list that entails lavish spending and letting lots of convicted criminals out of prison.
And that assumes that there is a unified entity on the other side that has the power to deliver an end to affirmative action. There isn't! Affirmative action is dispersed throughout many institutions, at many levels of government and private enterprise. But Colby says:
Just as the Obama administration is letting Washington and Colorado opt out of federal marijuana prohibition, let state and local governments opt out of affirmative action mandates, but only in exchange for opting in on universal pre-K and other things that working families actually need.Affirmative action doesn't exist because of top-down mandates! This isn't horse trading. It's unicorn trading.
If conservative politicians and judges are allowed to end affirmative action for the wrong reasons — a very real and immediate possibility — it’s safe to say that race relations in our great land will not improve.The "wrong reasons" — in Colby's world — are legal reasons. He's afraid of a Supreme Court decision killing affirmative action on Equal Protection grounds.
The onus falls on liberals to end it for the right reasons...The "right reasons" — in his view — are that it doesn't produce racial progress.
... and to use that opportunity to replace it with something meaningful.The opportunity to be used is the liberals' political willingness to end affirmative action, which he imagines puts them in a powerful bargaining position to extract big concessions from those Republicans with their contemptible fixation on color-blindness.
There's one more sentence, some pettishness about how we'll never make it to "the Promised Land" unless we fulfill his grandiose left-wing dreams.
২৫৫টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 255 এর 201 – থেকে 255For the record, I simply said I had no problem with affirmative action continuing for descendants of slaves and the country's original inhabitants. This doesn't seem a particularly controversial position.
Why not limit reparations to ONLY the families proven to have owned slaves?
Because thousands of people died to end the practice. They did their part.
Neshobnaki:
Yeah sure - you will meekly & gladly use some definition constructed by your so-called oppressors, the white man's govt. How's that feel you loser?
Paco: What does this mean? How do you measure "vibrancy"? What is the resonant frequency of US culture? Or are you simply using "vibrant" as a murky synonym for "multi-cultural"?
Vibrant (adj), vibrancy (noun):
1) (archaic) Strong, vivid, energetic.
2) (current) Used to designate any area, lively or boring, that is either ethnically or racially diverse, or has relatively few or no white people.
3) Guild argot among real estate agents and tourist boards. Meaning wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more and watch your wallet.
Synonym: "multicultural" - origin and connection obscure. "Multicultural" areas may be both monocultural (as long as the residents are not majority white) and lacking in actual cultural interest.
Usage notes: Generally not used un-ironically by normal people outside of the physics lab.
Anglelyne said...
But don't be too hard on ARM (Alternative Reality Media). Where else can I learn that Brits are emigrating because their cities just aren't vibrant(tm) enough for them?
Having lost the argument on the facts poor Angelyne is left only with snark and a few loser suckups. Not nothing, just not very much. Did you actually look at the data that refutes your claim or do you wish to remain in you fact-free zone?
AReasonableMan, you might have a market opportunity here: automate your system of posting random comments like "I won. You're all jerks" with a little web client. You could call it AutoBlab. Settings should include frequency, delay between posts, and the selection of a few commenters' names to single out for retorts.
Start it as a free service, like Twitter, and then inch your way toward selling ads with it and/or charging a monthly fee ($2?).
Then branch out into related products like SockPuppet, LatinInsult, and QuestionSource. Hmm. It might be better as one, big omnibus product with plug-ins.
Paco Wové said...
What does this mean?
Have you actually lived in these countries? Do you seriously believe that the US culture is not a vastly more dynamic culture than either Australia or Britain? It is ridiculous to argue otherwise. The US is the world leader in the sciences and in industrial design. US popular culture dominates the world. The US is where smart people come to make their mark on the world. Britain is Venice in terminal decline and Australia is a mine with a nice climate.
The snarky whining about other ethnicities and races ignores the reality of what the US has been from its inception. A remarkably diverse culture.
Bob Ellison said...
you might have a market opportunity here: automate your system of posting random comments like "I won.
If someone is going to ignore that they posted nonsensical statements it is not unreasonable for me to note this fact. I understand that poor Angelyne doesn't like enthnicities other than her own. It's a common enough feeling, but lets try to stick to the facts rather than make up nonsense.
That's another good example. Call that plug-in LookSquirrel. If you make it open-source or publish an API, the mob will fill in the gaps for you and make you a billionaire!
"lets try to stick to the facts rather than make up nonsense. "
Nonsense like "Angelyne doesn't like enthnicities other than her own"?
I know it's common to get all flustered and out-of-sorts when you realize you're going down in flames, but really ARM, that's pretty low.
Paco Wové, ScrapeBarrel is still in alpha testing. It'll improve. Give it time.
Paco Wové said...
Nonsense like "Angelyne doesn't like enthnicities other than her own"?
Go back and read what she wrote. This is her only argument, beyond some faltering attempts at snark. She states quite openly that she would like to decide which ethnicities get to live in the country.
There has been a serious decline in the quality of comments here at Althouse. When the going gets tough all anyone seems to have is snark. I'm guessing too many lawyers, facts remain optional in this environment.
MakeShitUp is coming along nicely!
Bob Ellison said...
MakeShitUp is coming along nicely!
More snark, no facts. Come on, you can do better. I know you've got it in you. You can come to terms with reality if you really want.
UseTheWordSnark will be unavailable between 12:00pm and 3:00pm EST due to overload. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Hey, come on, join me in this business venture, AReasonableMan! I've got friends in low places. If Twitter can do it, so can we! You've got the left, and I've got the right!
ARM: I understand that poor Angelyne doesn't like enthnicities other than her own.
Nah, I don't like them either.
I'm simply doing my best to raise the standard of debate around here. We can do this together, left and right, arm in arm. Let's first take some baby steps, no more ignoring inconvenient facts, personal preferences are not arguments and a whole lot less grade-school level snark.
We at AutoBlab Inc. apologize. UseTheWordSnark has crashed, and we are currently efforting attempts to estimate preliminary target dates for re-implementation.
ARM. You doubled down. You persist in making a fool of yourself. You are so full of shit. Stop.
Michael said...
ARM. You doubled down. You persist in making a fool of yourself. You are so full of shit. Stop.
Make an argument, cite facts, try it, it will be a revelation for you.
AReasonableMan said...
I'm simply doing my best to raise the standard of debate around here. We can do this together, left and right, arm in arm. Let's first take some baby steps, no more ignoring inconvenient facts, personal preferences are not arguments and a whole lot less grade-school level snark.
OK let's back up to your first comment in this thread:
I have no problem with affirmative action for descendants of slaves and the descendants of the country's original inhabitants - historically based reparations rather than race based affirmative action. Serious wrongs were done in the past that reverberate into the present. We still have a responsibility to address these issues.
How, exactly, can bona fide descendants be identified? Self-identification is unreliable. I suggested DNA testing, however, even this is fraught with difficulty. Furthermore, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that some sort of culpability testing be put in place too.
ARM. I did cite a fact. You are full of shit. You have made the arguments for me.
CL, Let's deal with what I think is the best argument against affirmative action, fairness.
George W. Bush is a third rate intellect who had no place being admitted into a school like Yale, a fact that was amply reflected in his subsequent grades. Much the same is true of Al Gore. They were both legacy students, accepted because of the wealth and prestige of their families. Life isn't perfectly fair. More deserving students missed out on admission because of a rigged system.
Affirmative action isn't perfectly fair in the sense that someone misses out on a college admission because of an affirmative action admission.
Which one of these situations is less fair?
There is structural unfairness built into our society. Is it unreasonable to believe that we should try to level the playing field to at least some extent in order to promote social mobility? Any system that attempts to do this will be imperfect in some way but it will not necessarily be less fair than the status quo.
Michael said...
ARM. I did cite a fact. You are full of shit. You have made the arguments for me.
Lack the resources to raise your game?
ARM: I'm not related to the Bush family nor to any alumnus of any Ivy school. Give me another fact pattern to include my cupability.
culpability not cupability. I'm not that much of a boob.
Special offer! ActLikeAnArrogantBitch is on sale today only, 90% off, for just 99 cents per month! If you sign up today only, you get WaitIShouldStopCommenting for free, for six months!
chickenlittle said...
culpability not cupability. I'm not that much of a boob.
Why is it all about you? I am not saying you are guilty of anything. Look past your own interests to those of the broader society? A permanent underclass is not in anyone's best interests any more than a permanent overclass is.
Is it unreasonable to believe that we should try to level the playing field to at least some extent in order to promote social mobility?
"Level the playing field" has two means to similar, but not the same end. We can raise the lower standing members up or knock down the highest standing members. One approach is constructive; the other destructive. JFK had the right idea when he said "A rising tide lifts all boats." BHO's legacy will be "an ebbing tide strands the yachts first."
Bob Ellison said...
Special offer! ActLikeAnArrogantBitch is on sale today only, 90% off, for just 99 cents per month! If you sign up today only, you get WaitIShouldStopCommenting for free, for six months!
My seven year old daughter can do better than this, but then she is a girl, you are just pretending to be one.
Why is it all about you?
Because when you or Crack, or Althouse or who have you seriously propose reparations, you're always willing to take money away from me or my kids because we're white. That's why.
Fair enough?
chickenlittle said...
"Level the playing field" has two means to similar, but not the same end. We can raise the lower standing members up or knock down the highest standing members. One approach is constructive; the other destructive. JFK had the right idea when he said "A rising tide lifts all boats."
On its face this seems to be an argument for some form of affirmative action.
chickenlittle said...
Because when you or Crack, or Althouse or who have you seriously propose reparations, you're always willing to take money away from me or my kids because we're white.
'Take money away' is too vague. How exactly are you hurt by affirmative action regarding college admissions? I have already conceded that it is not perfectly fair but you can make a reasonable argument that it is less unfair than the status quo.
On its face this seems to be an argument for some form of affirmative action
Except it was inclusive and not vindictive. Obama absolutely reeks of vindictiveness, despite his elite education.
chickenlittle said...
Except it was inclusive and not vindictive. Obama absolutely reeks of vindictiveness, despite his elite education.
How did this become about Obama? He hasn't done much either way on this particular issue that I am aware of.
Take money away' is too vague.
Well, your original proposal to continue awarding affirmative action was likewise too vague. You proposed no viable mechanism or policy to identify recipients.
YouAreLessOfAManThanMySevenYearOldDaughter is special-order only. You'll have to call our offices directly for that. Be sure to redeem your SmallDick coupon when you call for 20% off!
How did this become about Obama?
It became about Obama because I made it about JFK and compared the two.
Did you miss that?
@Also, the thread topic is about Affirmative Action in general and not college admissions.
Why do you want to focus only on college admissions? I suspect it's something dear to your heart.
chickenlittle said...
Did you miss that?
No but it is irrelevant. As I said the fairness issue seems the strongest argument against affirmative action, but it is complex argument that cuts many ways. In the end affirmative action has significantly helped some people, no one seems to disagree on this. It is not a zero sum game. A more equal society is a more productive society bringing benefits for everyone.
@ARM: I started out this morning giving you the benefit of your proposal. It seems clear to me now that you're only interested in lengthening this comment thread, so I'm terminating my contributions to this chain.
Good day, sir.
chickenlittle said...
@Also, the thread topic is about Affirmative Action in general and not college admissions.
Why do you want to focus only on college admissions?
I largely agree that we can't legislate affirmative action in business to any significant degree. I recently read 'The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine' by Michael Lewis. It is an inside look at the finance industry and its role in the Great Recession. One striking issue was how large a role family and ethnic connections played in getting jobs in this lucrative industry. Life isn't fair.
The education system is largely government funded and we should at least strive for some community wide fairness.
"universal pre-K"
Ugh. It's like communism. No matter how many times long term studies show that universal Pre-K doesn't deliver the hoped-for benefits, the leftists just insist it hasn't been done right yet.
So it seems to have been decided in the affirmative.
But wait! Sign up your left ball, and we'll take your right ball for free! Just pay postage and handling. Act now!
I dunno. Still needs work. Too much context required to go on stage.
I'm glad liberals are figuring out the bad results, but am profoundly disappointed if not horrified that all he can care about is "failure to achieve desired goal" rather than such petty concerns as legality, rights, and the Constitution. Even when liberals are right, they're terribly wrong.
this is only coming up now because the Democrats have decided they're finally going to get their Mexicans and don't need the black community anymore. Don't overthink this.
For their part, the blacks will continue to reflexively vote Democrat until the last PP clinic in the hood has finished its work.
this is only coming up now because the Democrats have decided they're finally going to get their Mexicans and don't need the black community anymore. Don't overthink this.
For their part, the blacks will continue to reflexively vote Democrat until the last PP clinic in the hood has finished its work.
Wait. By the race hustler logic, if you're black is very likely that someone in your ancestral tree also bought and sold blacks. So blacks should pay reparations to each other.
Wait. By the race hustler logic, if you're black is very likely that someone in your ancestral tree also bought and sold blacks. So blacks should pay reparations to each other.
Not surprising that he accuses Nixon of racism when it is LBJ who was the most openly racist president since Wilson. In fact Nixon gave us the modern affirmative action programs which he thought would break Democrat union bosses. He also was hard-core on integrating schools.
The left is just hateful and desperate on this issue. I say wait for the Supreme Court to strike it down.
Having spent a career helping administer affirmative action in a major oil company I'm having some difficulty relating this article to reality. Perhaps I'm just confused by the author's identification of affirmative action with President Nixon when it was in fact LBJ who started it with Executive Order 11246. Or his persistent conflation of terms (e.g., goals vs quotas, applicants vs hires, etc., etc.). However, the article has its comic moments, such as the assertion that there wasn't much backlash against affirmative action at first (shocked disbelief couple with the fervent hope that the Feds didn't really mean it and wouldn't enforce it is what I remember). In any event, he does display a real passion for the topic, and I'm convinced that with more time and maturity, plus a whole lot more research and experience he will get to something useful.
Lincoln initiated the Greatest Human Act in Humanity, "Emancipation Proclamation" to date and the Democrats held the Blacks down for another 100 years. Maybe, just maybe, if the Blacks/Slaves were introduced into Society in 1865/6/7, again, just maybe America would not have the problems of today!!! America didn't need another "Emancipation Proclamation" in the form of a "Civil Rights Bill"... Republicans have fought for the Blacks ever since the Civil War and the Democrated South held them under... How in the the world did the Blacks become Democrats?? Bob
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন