Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, "underrepresented racial/ethnic" students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.Apparently. That's a pretty big "apparently," omitted by Instapundit [who also includes the Leo quote], and I cannot figure out what motivated Leo to make that leap to the point where he could say what he said even with the "apparently."
Naturally, the University of Wisconsin wants a diverse student body and wants all of the students to do well in their classes and to graduate. It's a pretty dismal diversity policy that looks only at whether once underrepresented groups are now well represented. If the admissions process works to increase diversity, we don't just sit back and congratulate ourselves. We have the additional duty to provide a good educational experience to all of the students who come here.
That doesn't mean the plan is to adjust grades by race and ethnicity!
Leo relies on an article by UW economics professor W. Lee Hansen on the John William Pope Center site which critiques the UW's "Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence," which was adopted by the faculty senate. I've clicked through to the PDF of that document, and searches for words such as "grading" and "grade" turn up nothing. But Hansen goes on to talk about another document:
Unbeknownst to faculty senators, these goals and recommendations are based on the “Inclusive Excellence” framework adopted earlier by the Board of Regents.That document — PDF — has a page that defines various terms, including "representational equity," which means: "Proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades."
It's interesting to know that term and what it means, especially if and when that term is used, but it's not used — not once — in the "Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence," the document the faculty senate voted on. Even if that term were used, even along with the definition of the term, with its reference to grades, it wouldn't mean that anyone had thought they were talking about adjusting grades for minority students, as opposed to helping students achieve good grades.
Hansen obviously knows this. After asserting that teachers "would apparently have to adjust" grades, he... adjusts:
At the very least, this means even greater expenditures on special tutoring for weaker targeted minority students. It is also likely to trigger a new outbreak of grade inflation, as professors find out that they can avoid trouble over “inequitable” grade distributions by giving every student a high grade.In short, representational equity in grading is a goal. Who doesn't share that goal? It's not outrageous unless it's outrageously banal: We want all our students to do well.
It's one thing to oppose affirmative action in admissions, but don't let that opposition make you too quick to see dysfunction in the way it is implemented. It's perfectly appropriate to want the students who are members of underrepresented groups to do as well as other students. If you don't approve of affirmative action, you might jump to predict that there will be abuses in the grading.
But no one has proposed or embraced or adopted these abusive measures.
पोस्ट्स
१८३ टिप्पण्या:
Nonsense. Whether it states it outright or merely implies it, "equity grading" is coming to a University near you. Actually, yours.
By the way, the number of typos in your portion of this indicates you feel very strongly about it. Well, about denying it exists, anyway.
Ann,
I wish you would day "racial diversity" or "ethnic diversity" instead of "diversity."
What law schools and the Supreme Court are known for is LACK of diversity when it comes to STEM and Econ majors and loads of other qualifications.
I, for one, would rather see less affirmative action in admitting and more affirmative action in supporting the disadvantaged persons that get in. Sure, in a tie, throw the tie to the minority student, but don't lower the SAT or GPA expectations to get more minorities into college and then set them up to fail. Then all you've done is burden already-burdened populations with college debt and either no degree or a degree in a soft/easy major that doesn't mean anything.
I'd rather see fewer get in -- but then have them supported as much as possible with scholarships, special tutoring, study groups, counselors -- throw whatever resources can be gotten at helping disadvantaged students achieve. Just letting them in and then sitting back and watching them flounder is incredibly lame.
You know, I went to college out of state, where I knew no one, and I was kind of in a sink-or-swim state. I probably could have used a lot more guidance than I got. For instance, my first quarter as a freshman, I cluelessly enrolled in a 300-level English class that I later learned was considered among the toughest in the curriculum.
No one gave a damn about whether I succeeded or not based on my race, because I was exactly the wrong race.
The resources that will be diverted toward "certain" students under this plan might not be a big huge deal, but it would be nice to make a pretense of equality or fairness at some point along the chain. When does the helping hand finally give it a rest?
Diversity is important to UW-Madison
Diversity of skin color seems a vastly overrated thing. Diversity of thought should be the key.
And if you have to stretch to get them in the door, then they might not belong there. They should get no special perks.
I don't see how this could ever stand up in court. I would think there is a equal protection right to fair grading in state run schools.
I love Instapundit.com. Glenn is prolific. But in his attempt to either be provocative or snarky, he grossly simplifies issues. I know that will will happen with his style. But I wish it didn't.
"Proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution" equals quotas.
Is there an innocent explanation?
"Apparently" in this case is as useful as "may" or "could" in news reporting,...
I'm not surprised Glenn Reynolds didn't print the truth:
He's not known for it.
He's known for blowing elections for the Right and goading on those endorsing bad political moves,..
That goes for a lot of policies these days - even by sovereign governments - which does not seem to prevent them from being implemented.
If I were to fault Leo for something, it would be that he has now alerted the diversity cult to documentary backup for action they're inclined to take anyway. I would bet the farm that there is some UW adjunct handing out grades on the ethnic curve already.
Did you hear that W.E.B. Du Bois proposed using a "talented tenth" of blacks to get free - and then "screw the rest" of us?
A white guy told me that, here, to show how much more he knew about black history than I did.
I'm sure they'll mangle AA any-which-way, for the ignorant to swallow, too.
Leave it to Glenn Boy,...
In short, representational equity in grading is a goal. Who doesn't share that goal?
Me. I don't share that goal. Because the achievement of it would mean only one of two things had occurred:
1. A near unbelievable statistical occurrence
2. Manipulation to achieve it.
Why? Because our genes have granted the different races, different gifts. Some of them directly impact academic performance, others,say, athletic performance.
So to see, for example, an equal distribution of grades in Physics, by, say, Asians and Blacks, would almost certainly mean manipulation was involved.
One should not have 'goals' that are impossible, given reality.
A better goal would be "to see all ethnic groups achieve to the highest potential of their latent abilities", the grade chips falling where they may.
"Bring out everyone's best", is the only truly worthy goal of a university - and one worth achieving.
Seeing the world as we all 'wish' it were, is for children only.
Instapundit did not omit the word "apparently".
I read the article and agree that the conclusion that grades be adjusted is on weak ground. But the rest of the article does seem to indicate that minorities should somehow magically be included "proportionally" in all classes - the most difficult being cited.
Considering too that they defined failure as a (pejorative) term somehow being "disproportionally blamed on the student" (nothing to do with academic abilities) , I think it's pretty obvious that some type of "help" would be needed to get these people into advanced courses.
I personally think it's the worst kind of scam to admit people without academic qualifications under the rubric of "diversity" and have them fail in the first or 2nd year. But the school gets the money and the EEOC points, so line um up, rubes!
representational equity in grading is a goal
And something easily achieved with a little cheating and grade adjustment. Now, if they had made good teaching a goal...
I'm a college professor, and my students of color don't seem to be doing as well as they should, as compared to my non-racially diverse students. The college administration wants answers, and says my future with the institution may be in jeopardy if things don't change next semester.
What's the easiest way for me to fix it and keep my job?
It's perfectly appropriate to want the students who are members of underrepresented groups to do as well as other students.
Yes, but...
That document — PDF — has a page that defines various terms, including "representational equity," which means: "Proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades."
That's a pretty big "racial-ethnic", omitted by Althouse.
I would have sworn there was a post on a teacher struggling with disadvantaged students in the age of accountability (standardized testing) who ended up cheating because why?
In short, representational equity in grading is a goal. Who doesn't share that goal? It's not outrageous unless it's outrageously banal: We want all our students to do well.
I definitely want the neurosurgeon about to cut into my brain to "do well" in med school and meet "representational equity. We certainly all want students to graduate.
"Instapundit did not omit the word "apparently"."
His writing, which I quote verbatim in the post title, omits "apparently," paraphrasing Leo, whom he then quotes. "Apparently" is in Leo's quote, so in that sense, "apparently" is at the Instapundit link and the discrepancy is there to be seen.
Of course this is not grade-by-race, but why should minority students get tutoring help paid for with general university funds, so that white students effectively fund special programs which they don't benefit from? why not tutoring for all?
"I read the article and agree that the conclusion that grades be adjusted is on weak ground. But the rest of the article does seem to indicate that minorities should somehow magically be included "proportionally" in all classes - the most difficult being cited."
Of course, it's one thing to identify a goal, another to actually achieve it. But it's quite another thing to jump ahead to your own ideas of what would be necessary to achieve the goal and to attribute to those who adopted the goal the means that you think would be needed to achieve it.
Goals are often stated only or mostly as aspirations, and even where there is serious intent to achieve them, the commitment isn't at the "by any means necessary" level.
In this case, the goal is easy to endorse. Everyone will endorse it. But what will they do to get there? What will work? How much will it cost? Is it ethical? Is it legal? The consensus breaks down.
"I would have sworn there was a post on a teacher struggling with disadvantaged students in the age of accountability (standardized testing) who ended up cheating because why?"
That was the article in The New Yorker: "Wrong Answer: In an era of high-stakes testing, a struggling school made a shocking choice."
I think the passage in question from the article is this one:
Especially shocking is the language about “equity” in the distribution of grades. Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, “historically underrepresented racial/ethnic” students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.
At the very least, this means even greater expenditures on special tutoring for weaker targeted minority students. It is also likely to trigger a new outbreak of grade inflation, as professors find out that they can avoid trouble over “inequitable” grade distributions by giving every student a high grade.
When I first read through the definitions, I got the same impression that this professor did, that the grades had to be equally distributed across the various groups but I now feel that this is a false read. The goal is to have an equal distribution of grades. It is not stated how this goal is to be reached. One would hope it would be by providing additional tutoring opportunities for ALL underperforming students verses just grading each "group" on their own curve or through grade inflation.
We shall see.
The slanted grading method is as easy as can be. Do it in secret and then it's OK. That is all we really ask from our politicians...don't get caught.
The trouble is the favored ones knowing about their secret advantages will not hesitate to threaten a Professor that doesn't come across. Bingo, there are appear high grades every time.
Most likely the redistribution of high grades will have been done by rogue Professors over at the Cincinnati campus that are being over seen by experienced VA Administrators on bureaucratic loan.
So watch out for those e-mails. Hard drive replacements can get costly.
"That was the article in The New Yorker: "Wrong Answer: In an era of high-stakes testing, a struggling school made a shocking choice."
Off-topic, but I am so tired of seeing "shocking" in so many headlines. If I was truly shocked by all those stories, it would be terrible to read the news.
I also can't stand the lists I see everywhere - "10 things you didn't know about..." or "The 5 shocking things that..." I think Ann has commented on this terrible trend in the past.
It is like adolescents are writing the headlines.
I often read, from supporters of AA, that the proof is in the pudding. The under qualified students who are accepted through AA admissions policies "catch-up" by the end of their academic career. The reasoning seems to be that all they needed was a more nurturing and challenging environment. Maybe the "catch-up" is the result of unwritten grading policies.
Mr. Levi Starks is onto something! "Don't you think you might need to re-evaluatate your teaching strategies, professor?
What is the racial make-up of UW-Law?
I'm with someone has to say it. It is a ridiculous goal. The proper goal is to try to educate each student to the best of his interests and ability. No way Ann's son and a fresh off the border kid with parental IQ of 80 (The average in Honduras and El Salvador)are likely to both achieve at the same level, and it's a waste of time and money to deny that.
Read Michelle Obama's Senior Thesis at Princeton or listen to Sheila Jackson Lee (B.A. Yale, J.D. Univ of Va) and Barack Obama(J.D. HLS) on basic law, like auto insurance or the Constitution and argue with a straight face that the emphasis on equal outcomes isn't a farce..
I think we had this same conversation about a year ago. The topic was girls serving in combat. I think the brass said the standard would NOT be lowered, but we MIGHT lower the standard.
So, what does it mean?
How about a separate-but-equal curve for each race? Would that be OK at UW-Madison?
@Althouse, are you aware of any left-wing "goal" that didn't eventuate in quotas? Because I'm not.
Its already happening all over. Athletes are graduating from top 10 schools (probably Wisconsin too) without the ability to read or write.
The fact that they graduate must involve creative grading although not necessarily by race but...let's get real...can we talk...its mainly blacks.
You say "Naturally, the University of Wisconsin wants a diverse student body" Why? I would say that is very, very un american.
I would think that an instructor or grader has a higher duty of loyalty to the subject, to grade fairly.
2+2=4, and one doesn't get to grade it as correct for 3.8 to 4.2 if hispanic, 3.6 to 4.4 if black, 3.9 to 4.1 if white, and 3.95 to 4.05 if asian.
And one doesn't get to have all numbers larger than 2 be correct if female, lesbian, or transgender.
Helping students achieve occurs during instruction. One way to help students is to fail them, so they finally recognize that they can not succeed at that major, and find a different course for their life. It helps the student to bring them to that realization early in their career, before they have spent all the money for 4 years of college to not be ready for work in that field, and even if hired based on grade inflation, to never be happy working in that field.
"But no one has proposed or embraced or adopted these abusive measures."
Not yet.
But if at UW the pursuit of diversity requires "inclusive excellence," and inclusive excellence requires "representational equity," and representational equity is measured by "proportional participation," and proportional participation is focused on grade distribution, then the risk rises that faculty failure to award the same grades, on average, to URM will be treated as a violation of "representational equity." Sensible faculty will know what to do.
In this area, as in others, diversity policies invite defensive corruption of ordinary standards.
Forty-some years ago, when I attended the U.W., diversity (known as affirmative action then), was all the rage. 40+ years later, nothing seems to have improved, or changed at all. What is the moral to be learned?
To Ann it is not enough that blacks and hispanics are given preferential admission. She considers it obvious that resources should also be shifted towards them to try to bring their results up closer to par with other students. Really? We should spend the most resources on the least capable students? Isn't that the exact opposite of the entire concept of higher education?
I just remember the story about the Cross-Examination Debate Chamionship earlier this year.Young African American debaters ignored the resolutions and ranted on "other" topics. They won! Grading policies ignored!
From The Atlantic article:
Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like “nigga authenticity” and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee’s rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. “Fuck the time!” he yelled.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/traditional-college-debate-white-privilege/360746/
These problems with retention start with the foolish pre-admission (required attendance) things like SOAR here at UW, wherein all incoming freshmen come in for orientation and registration (and things like getting IDs). Why is this kind of thing not done all on-line? The SOAR program requires families to come into Madison and stay the night, usually; it has an incredible carbon footprint and is indefensible from that standpoint.
My son is going to college out of state. He has to go to this kind of thing as well -- two days!! of registration-type orientation and team/community building. Why?
My cynical self thinks it's because it helps those who are near the bottom, acceptance-wise, understand what they're getting in to -- but why, then, do TPTB require every student to do it? So the dumber students don't feel put down, is my guess.
It's a racket, a complete racket, that accomplishes very little for a student who will succeed, other than costing them or their parents money for lodging, gas (or airfare).
I'm not going along with the son -- the wife is -- but if I were and the time for questions came, I would certainly ask why the tremendous carbon footprint of the orientation program isn't addressed, can't someone please think of the planet? Just to see the heads explode.
So yes, I agree with Sarah at 2:21: lower-achieving students should not even be admitted. Use the resources to help those who are admitted.
Of course, Universities who depend on the growth of the student body -- to a point -- and the tuition dollars that students bring in (esp. out-of-state) -- won't go for something so radical as this.
College. What a racket.
Here's a cut-and-paste from Gell's post.
"HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: “Diversity” Plan Involves Grading By Race And Ethnicity. “Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, ‘underrepresented racial/ethnic’ students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.”
Emphasis added.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/191935/
That was the article in The New Yorker: "Wrong Answer: In an era of high-stakes testing, a struggling school made a shocking choice."
Apparently not that shocking.
Pa. attorney general is probing cheating at Phila. schools
News of the criminal probe, which one source said involves a grand jury, comes as 138 educators have been implicated in a citywide scandal. The revelation comes a day after three Philadelphia school principals were fired for alleged cheating. The School Reform Commission removed the principals as of Friday, and officials said further investigation and more discipline was to come.
Allegations of cheating in Philadelphia schools first surfaced in 2011, involving 53 district schools and three city charter schools.
In recent years, testing scandals have erupted in Washington; Cincinnati; Baltimore; Detroit; Houston; Los Angeles; and Newark, N.J., among other cities.
Since 2009, cheating has been confirmed in 37 states and Washington.
I'd like to see some diversity in the various "Studies" programs. Force them let in diverse members of groups traditionally underrepresented in their classes.
Who determines race and ethnicity?
..there are objective (e.g. dna) tests?
..the individual self-designates?
..some bureaucrat designates?
I suspect the "adjusted" grading scheme is already at work.
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
In a meritocracy you make it on your own. For social reasons we're trying to modify a meritocracy into "something that seems more equitable". The problem is that the further you get from merit (and I include heirs of alumnae, rich donors, etc.) the more you wind up adlibbing. There was a gorilla that was reportedly taught to use rudimentary sign-language, but the cost and time to do it was exorbitant. Should we let in some congressman's son or some minority sans merit just because a gorilla can be taught to use sign-language? It gets a little absurd and I think most people recognize that fact.
Do you really think that if diversity is enforced in admissions there will not also be attempts to enforce it in grading?
"Naturally, the University of Wisconsin wants a diverse student body and wants all of the students to do well in their classes and to graduate."
I can't think of a combination of meanings for the words "naturally" and "diverse" for which the boolean operator of this and statement is true. Therefore the entire sentence is false.
The "diversity plan" is wrong without any further qualification. The goal of integration should be pursued before it reaches an institution where standards are set to discriminate between individuals based on ethnicity, gender, etc.
The paradox is that in promoting "diversity", they are also promoting division. It's unlikely that they do not perceive this not so nuanced distinction. So, their effort is at best for show, and at worst to deceive people in order to exploit leverage.
Our SCOTUS is made up of 6 Roman Catholics, 3 Jews and 9 humanities majors. Who the hell needs diversity?
Isn't that pretty much what they do now?
Isn't that pretty much what they do now?
""That was the article in The New Yorker: "Wrong Answer: In an era of high-stakes testing, a struggling school made a shocking choice." Off-topic, but I am so tired of seeing "shocking" in so many headlines. If I was truly shocked by all those stories, it would be terrible to read the news. I also can't stand the lists I see everywhere - "10 things you didn't know about..." or "The 5 shocking things that..." I think Ann has commented on this terrible trend in the past. It is like adolescents are writing the headlines."
Good observation. Yes, it's sad if The New Yorker is sinking to Upworthy-style grabbing at traffic.
"In short, representational equity in grading is a goal. Who doesn't share that goal?"
I don't. I don't make it my goal that other ethnic groups demographically share the same exact interests as any of the demographic groups I belong too.
For example, both my sons were not allowed to pursue sports in school because there was not a equal number of women interested in sports. Title IX prevents it.
It may be that particular ethnic groups and sexes show little interest in various subjects from math and science, to dance and music. Expecting both representative diversity and also expecting equality of grades seems like an impossible goal for an external agent to achieve.
You might be able to force a bunch of women to join the football team to get the numbers up, but most will then do much more poorly. Or you can filter based on competence and you will get many less women on the team, but at least they will perform reasonably.
Prof. Althouse,
Law school grading is very different than in the undergraduate school. If you are like most law professors I know, you blind grade - grade on the basis of final exams identified only by student numbers. You don't know who got what grade until you are all done. The chips fall where they may and race, gender, all that bullshit is irrelevant. That's not how undergraduate grading works to the best of my now ancient recollection.
"You say "Naturally, the University of Wisconsin wants a diverse student body" Why? I would say that is very, very un american."
Actually, that's a sentence I tweaked, adding the "Naturally," and I should have written it differently. The effect of the "naturally" was supposed to be on the second clause. I now see that it should have been written differently. Maybe: "The University of Wisconsin wants a diverse student body and, given that goal, naturally, it wants all of the students to do well in their classes and to graduate."
I don't see what's "very, very unAmerican" though. We want the community of students to contain a variety of individuals with different backgrounds and experiences. It's part of the education, enriching classroom discussion and providing outside of class opportunities for students to learn from each other.
So, the higher caste is inbred, and self preservation involves fresh meat?
Now, the choices are for pedophiles, and adopting tatooed gangters from the hinterlands.
They said the dark ages ended, that would be something.
So the idea is that if you went on a pure meritocracy during the admissions process, you'd end up with a student body dominated by Asians and Caucasians. This is anathema, so you deliberately select a higher proportion of non-Asians/non-Caucasians, with the intent of supplying them with additional resources so that their GPAs and graduation rate will be the same as the Asians and Caucasians?
Lovely idea. Won't work. By the time you're the age of a college freshman it's too late. Some few can catch up, but the vast majority will not. They're just too far behind.
What - you think this hasn't been tried at other campuses? Has anyone done any research on this? Seriously. Does UW think it's discovered some new truth? Do they think that they're different from everyone else? That they don't need to actually look at history, at other schools' experiences? They are, somehow, the universe's most special snowflakes?
Go ahead, blow money and years on this. The endpoint will be kids who don't graduate but who will owe money they have no hope of repaying without a college degree - and who would have been a lot better off if they had gone to a cheaper and less demanding school, or had gone into a non-academic endeavor (e.g., a trade).
"To Ann it is not enough that blacks and hispanics are given preferential admission. She considers it obvious that resources should also be shifted towards them to try to bring their results up closer to par with other students. Really? We should spend the most resources on the least capable students? Isn't that the exact opposite of the entire concept of higher education?"
I am far less interested in how the admission procedure is done than in how well we educate the students that end up coming here. But if the policy is to be pro-diversity — which legally has to mean only that race is a factor in a holistic decision — then it is not acceptable to have the minority students who have been invited here languish, disproportionally, at the bottom of the class.
It should be the students who work hard and attend class get good grades. Otherwise the admissions policy isn't supportable.
That's what I've thought teaching here since the 1980s. People who care about affirmative action may engage in some denial, but it's important to face up to this, and it looks like the new plan does at least gesture in that direction.
It's much worse to just stick to affirmative action because you think it's right as a matter of principle. It needs to work in practice, and practice needs to mean much more than that the classroom looks diverse.
Title IX does not require sex-quotas in sports participation, either. How's that working out? The easiest way to comply with a policy is rarely to comply with the desired behavior. The easy way out is grade inflation for minorities or grade quotas for non-favored ethnic groups.
If I was given the charge of getting diversity on the bench of the Supreme Court, the first move I'd make is to stop accepting nominations of anyone who graduated from Yale or Harvard Law Schools. IIRC 8 of the 9 current SCOTUS justices are graduates of those two schools.
Hansen says: t is also likely to trigger a new outbreak of grade inflation, as professors find out that they can avoid trouble over “inequitable” grade distributions by giving every student a high grade.
Althouse says: But no one has proposed or embraced or adopted these abusive measures.
How do you know? Hansen has proposed a certain mechanism, which has in the past occurred where one teacher was a particularly harder grader than others even without reference to the race of the students. It's also happened to benefit football players, though maybe not at UW.
"It should be the students who work hard and attend class get good grades."
I'm afraid that's not enough. I'm on another blog where academics complain about students who challenge their grades by saying "I came to class. I worked hard. I deserve a better grade." Their rejoinder is that while these are good things, they don't guarantee that you have either the intellectual capacity or the academic preparation to absorb, understand, and communicate the information that the classes attempt to impart.
"underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades."
I am a STEM major, but I aced all my English and Grammar courses, and this sure seems to me to say that grades are to be distributed according to groups, rather than what you earn as an individual.
If they didn't mean that, they should not have said that. Words have meaning, unless we are talking newspeak here. Oh, that's right, we have always been at war with EastAsia.
Ann Althouse 1: " But if the policy is to be pro-diversity — which legally has to mean only that race is a factor in a holistic decision — then it is not acceptable to have the minority students who have been invited here languish, disproportionally, at the bottom of the class."
Ann Althouse 2: "It should be the students who work hard and attend class get good grades."
I wonder if our understanding of human nature would indicate that these two Althousian assertions/desires/observations are truly compatible/achievable?
It all sounds like a setup for continuing round-robin administration discussions regarding how the minority students admitted via melanin-content who don't "succeed" have been failed by the institution and institutional racism and institutional failure to "check privilege" rather than by lack of hard work or innate capability of the student.
You know, sort of what already happens now.
Thou dost protest too much Ms. Althouse.
If you admit people you have an obligation to teach them. or do you blame the individual? In retrospect I blame myself for my failure to learn (although I have had lousy teachers).
If put on the spot and you need to produce the graduates, it's easier to hand out grades than teach.
@Charlie Martin
As I said above and in the original post, Instapundit paraphrased what Leo wrote, omitting the "apparently." Instapundit does go on include the Leo quote, at which point we do see the word "apparently" in his post.
Obviously, I also think that the statement even with the "apparently" is bad. But I have a problem with the paraphrasing omitting it, even where the quote does follow it.
Some months ago I read an article by a Russian Jewish mathematician about anti-semetic policies in the education of the old USSR. If you were Jewish and wanted to get into grad school in the sciences, you had to score higher on the entrance exam than an ethnic Russian.
This was justified by the authorities because it would achieve what they felt was the proper ethnic mix of science grad students.
Sounds awfully unfair, doesn't it?
But if we set one admittance test score requirement for blacks and hispanics, and a higher score requirement for whites and asians, aren't we doing the same thing?
It's a vicious circle. Primary and secondary education for a large percentage of ethnic minorities is inferior to that for whites, especially more affluent whites. Thus the minority students are less prepared when they get to college. (You need only to look at the ETS study on race and test scores from about ten years ago to see this. The results were so bad that they haven't dared repeat the study.)
Colleges talk a good game about remedial help, but generally these programs are ineffective. Even when effective, they don't make up for the gap unless the student is extraordinary. Most college students, black and white, are not extraordinary.
Nobody likes these results, so the call comes to Do Something. It's easy for a Board of Regents to make pronouncements, but really hard to do what they pronounce.
Further, to the extent that underachieving students are given a score they did not earn, they are being defrauded, and so is the society. The society has mollified some of the most vocal, and can continue to provide substandard education to the poor and minorities for another generation or two. This has already happened, so why will it not happen again?
And then pay attention to what Levi Starks said. The faculty is being told to produce results. His job might be at stake. What results are those pressures going to bring.
Of course it will not be the policy to shade grades to produce race equity. But what will the result be? In my opinion it's likely to be be the same old crap unless we get far better at every level at educating all children the way we educate our elites. And it's also going to require a rethinking of curriculum at the college level.
It's a big job. Are the Regents really committed to it? The fact that this policy of the regents has remained so obscure makes me doubtful.
Ann,
By what definition is what Glenn did paraphrasing? He wrote an 8 word HEADLINE ending in a colon which then led into the quoted text.
A headline should not be construed as a paraphase. A paraphase intends to convey the meaning of the quote without actually using the words of the quote; a headline sets the tone for an article or quote and then provides the article or quote.
Considering your penchant for word choice, you really attacked Glenn on this for personal/professional reasons rather than cold analysis. You claim he omitted a word that appears 13 words into his quote and 21 words after his "paraphasing" begins. You intended for your post to be read as Glenn taking a deliberate action that was quite the opposite of what he actually did.
He could have just posted his headline and linked to the full article, which would have buried the "apparently." But he did not. He included it right there.
I think you owe him an apology and an update on here.
So, um, he omitted it except where he included it?
Ann,
But if the policy is to be pro-diversity — which legally has to mean only that race is a factor in a holistic decision — then it is not acceptable to have the minority students who have been invited here languish, disproportionally, at the bottom of the class.
So, how do we avoid the "not acceptable"? Or, rather, how do we avoid it while not lavishing on the "underrepresented" special minorities-only tutoring, or goosing their grades upward selectively?
The individual who, to make it through college, requires special tutoring, remedial classes, study groups, counseling, "equity grading," and God knows what other hand-holding and special privileges, is by definition unqualified for college and has no business being there.
College for everyone is folly, tragic, wasteful, and destructive: most people lack the smarts to succeed at academic work on the college-level, and still fewer have any interest in it. And there's nothing wrong with that.
"representational equity in grading is a goal. Who doesn't share that goal?"
I don't. That's because I know that any neutral grading system will produce disparate results. I know that because I know that in every time and every place in history, different ethnicities have obtained different results.
Is it nature or nurture, some mix of heredity, culture, and individual experience? I don't know (or really much care). What I do know is, the only way to achieve proportional results in any endeavor is to use quotas, or to "adjust" qualifications so that everything "just happens to" come out equal.
Is it "fair" that such a disproportionate percentage of chess grandmasters have been Russian Jewish men, and should that be fixed with handicapping/affirmative action? Does a Russian Jewish male competitor "represent" Russian male Jewry in any meaningful sense, or just himself?
The bottom line is, you can have equality of opportunities OR equality of outcomes, but choose one because you'll never have both.
Levi Starks,
"I'm a college professor, and my students of color don't seem to be doing as well as they should, as compared to my non-racially diverse students. The college administration wants answers, and says my future with the institution may be in jeopardy if things don't change next semester.
What's the easiest way for me to fix it and keep my job?"
I'd suggest immediately, and vocally, advocating for the institution to start engaging in the discussion on the side of reparations, since trying to do a side-by-side comparison (with that tutored blonde bitch, who rode to school on her own horse from a mini-mansion, with the yacht out front of the multiple SUVs and the four-wheeler her family gleaned from slavery) isn't really helpful. Think about it:
No one could accuse you of shucking your responsibilities (They demanded answers) and, God Damn It, at that I'd demand a raise and practically dare them to fire me.
Because I was a white guy and I said it.
So many lost opportunities here - and all because you're a white guy, trapped in racist ideology, and (yeah) that makes you kinda stupid,...
"Proportional representation"..."distribution of grades". Now, how in hell can a professor NOT get the message?
JimBrock
The quote Glen was paraphrasing was not the one you mentioned. His title paraphrases this quote from Leo: "And let’s put that last one in caps: GRADES WILL BE GIVEN OUT BY RACE AND ETHNICITY."
The section he paraphrased did not have "apparently" in it, and he left apparently in the section he quoted. So he never left "apparently" out. Anywhere. It may be a small point but you made a big deal out if it.
"wants a diverse student body"
Why?
And how come that never applies to a diversity of thought? I'll be the conservative profs can be counted on one hand.
Jane the Actuary,
"Of course this is not grade-by-race, but why should minority students get tutoring help paid for with general university funds, so that white students effectively fund special programs which they don't benefit from?"
I always think whites invented Jim Crow AND the phrase "Stop Playing The Victim" until I hear whites talk.
Then, I realize, it was just Jim Crow,....
Lets apply "diversity" to the basketball team.
I am far less interested in how the admission procedure is done than in how well we educate the students that end up coming here....It should be the students who work hard and attend class get good grades. Otherwise the admissions policy isn't supportable.
Attending class and working hard do not necessarily result in becoming educated. That is why the "A" in SAT used to stand for "aptitude." Now, like so much else in our educational system, it stands for nothing.
Ann writes "I am far less interested in how the admission procedure is done than in how well we educate the students that end up coming here. But if the policy is to be pro-diversity — which legally has to mean only that race is a factor in a holistic decision — then it is not acceptable to have the minority students who have been invited here languish, disproportionally, at the bottom of the class."
If it's not acceptable to have minority students--diversity admissions--languish at the bottom of the class, then don't admit them. This is the "mismatch" problem identified and written about by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr.
Secondly, they're not disproportionally at the bottom of the class. As admitted, they're inferior students based on grades and standardized tests--as other than the diversity criteria, they wouldn't have been admitted.
Re: "But no one has proposed or embraced or adopted these abusive measures."
Of course not. It's not necessary to PROPOSE such a racially rigged grading system. The imposition of any diversity plan will, however, include just such an abominable - but predictable - result.
Perhaps one reason people are jumping to conclusions here is Grutter and Gratz. They basically said that in college admissions you can't publicly give someone points for being a particular race but you can achieve the same result by saying you are looking at the whole person and making sure that your decision-making is private.
If "representational equity in grading is a goal" and grades are determined in private and the courts won't interfere ...
Alec Rawls,
The racist phrasing is incredible:
"We should spend the most resources on the least capable students?"
What makes them the "least capable," Mr. Rawls?
And, who is the most capable, the white kid who glides to college with no bumps or the black kid who overcomes multiple obstacles, intentionally placed in his way, to reach the same place?
And - if the black kid gets equal to that white kid under those very circumstances - would you still deny A) the black was the most capable? B) was the most deserving? And/or D) helping him/her out, at that very point, would probably be a good idea?
For the individual and the nation?
So - what do you say? Who gets the hand?
Buffy The Vampire Slayer or George Washington Carver?
The choice is yours,...
I expect better.
Althouse:
It's interesting to know that term and what it means, especially if and when that term is used, but it's not used — not once — in the "Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence,"
What could "Inclusive Excellence" mean? Well, let's open the document that defines it and see...
Conveniently, it is right there in highlighted bubble for the lazy reader:
Inclusive Excellence brings together a comprehensive knowledge base – research and theory—
from a variety of sources. Within this framework there are some concepts and terms that are
fundamentally linked to the educational mission and institutional practice, and thus deserve to be
highlighted. The definitions have been categorized by four essential pillars of Inclusive ExcellenceDiversity, Equity, Inclusion and Excellence.
This must be written for children, because we have four brightly colored subheadings, one of which is "Equity" that includes the following 3 definitions: Equity Mindedness, Deficit Mindedness, and Representational Equality.
Uh oh. More reading. What is Representational Equality?
Proportional participation of historically
underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all
levels of an institution, including high status
special programs, high-demand majors, and in the
distribution of grades. (Bensimon, 2008)
So, via simple search and replace the VERY TITLE of the document becomes:
"Framework for Diversity and DIVERSITY, INCLUSION, EXCELLENCE, EQUITY MINDEDNESS, DEFICIT MINDEDNESS, and REPRESENTATIONAL EQUITY in the
distribution of grades."
Wow. That's really hard to understand. Let's pick nits about where the quotation marks go.
jacksonjay,
“Fuck the time!”
Hide your daughters - Niggas is controllin' the vertical AND the horizontal,...
Mike Sigman,
"In a meritocracy you make it on your own. For social reasons we're trying to modify a meritocracy into 'something that seems more equitable'."
Which doesn't make a lot of sense to do, unless whites realize - because we blacks pointed out (along with "All Men Are Created Equal") this WASN'T a meritocracy but whatever a slaveholding nation was turning into - America's claims to fairness are a crock of baldfaced lies.
Let go of the meritocracy lie - because we've got too long a history without it - and the rest makes a lot more sense,...
Brian Macker,
"I don't make it my goal that other ethnic groups demographically share the same exact interests as any of the demographic groups I belong too."
Nobody asked you that - which is your first problem:
YOURS.
You're not responding to what's in front of you but what you think - a form of narcissism. You're so in love, with your own thoughts, you don't grasp or respond to what others say. Even in writing. It's kinda remarkable to witness.
Especially when, superior-feeling you pretends they have the problem, instead yourself. It's a very convenient way to psychologically absolve yourself of responsibility to them - whoever "they" may be. Like, your fellow Americans, right?
Whites have weird ideas of to build a country, because they always start out thinking about themselves - and not giving a damn about anybody else.
Not giving a damn about anybody else leads to killing.
I'd think they'd know that, too, by now,...
I have seen anecdotal stories of professors giving black students A's whether earned or not. I have seen these stories going back to the 80's and I think Sowell the talks about it in one of his books.
The reason is that a few black students are quick to yell racism if they don't like their grades. So, "Screw 'em. Give them all A's and avoid the hassle" as someone once said.
From personal experience, I know this does happen. A colleague of mine got dragged through the racist mud by a black student. The colleague was a long time friend and I seriously doubt there was anything racist in his treatment of the student.
I had taught the student in question and knew him to be somewhat of an asshole. I had him in another class and didn't even look at his work or exams. Just marked them A and fuck him.
The ONLY thing that should affect a grade is whether the student knew the materials or not. NOTHING else. No "grading on a curve", nothing but how well they know the material.
John Henry
Gary Bucher,
"It may be a small point but you made a big deal out if it."
And, I'd like to point out, how enjoyable it is to see white people will argue over NOTHING.
Many episodes of COPS said it was so but, to be honest - and giving you the benefit of the doubt - I wasn't sure if the phenomena climbed the income ladder,...
Fen,
"I'll be the conservative profs can be counted on one hand."
Because only after you've got a colorblind racist, shop-worn, bow-tied dweeb, with a representation of Jesus stuck up his butt, can you claim to have all the important American outlooks covered,...
Jackson Jay said:
I often read, from supporters of AA, that the proof is in the pudding. The under qualified students who are accepted through AA admissions policies "catch-up" by the end of their academic career.
Not according to everything I see. Blacks drop out of college at much higher rates than whites. There is a lot of evidence that one of the big reasons for this is that they should not have been admitted to that particular school in the first place.
rather, they should have gone to a less rigorous school where they were qualified to attend.
A student that might get into MIT under AA might find themself overwhelmed and drop out without ever getting a degree.
They might be qualified to get into a UW level school and do well there. Most importantly, they would be able to graduate.
This causes 2 problems.
1) A whole bunch of credits from MIT, without the degree, is pretty much useless. It's like being in a phone booth with 24 cents, you just can't call anyone.
2) Setting kids up for failure like this is corrosive as Hell. They will spend the rest of their lives looking in the mirror and seeing a failure who could not complete college.
There will be exceptions, of course, but the stats show that the above is true in far, far, too many cases.
John Henry
Pretty sad that these bureaucrats think society should still be wasting time on this crap. Pretty sad that Althouse is defending this waste of time. Pretty sad that I am wasting my time commenting on this crap.
I wish people would quit trying to make diversity into a holy word. It's not. It's more of a disaster. The more diversity a city has (Los Angeles, for instance) the less the citizens trust one another and the lower the sense of community.
In the past when I have asked what is so great about diversity, one answer I get back is, "Oh, look at all the different kinds of restaurants there are."
Oh great. We are supposed to ruin a city just so some people have lots of new choices when they go out for dinner?
Smilin' Jack,
"Attending class and working hard do not necessarily result in becoming educated."
If you're a white guy saying that, I'm applauding you. I don't care if it was for a racist reason or anything.
Great observation,...
When the media reports on something that you are an expert about they almost always get in wrong.
But you believe them the rest of the time.
Crackhead,
You live in an interesting world of straw men, victimology and logical non-sequitars.
Are you capable of doing anything that produces a color-blind positive result for society?
Is that something you have the slightest interest in?
OK, so the designated students that we extra-super-special care about get all the additional help and resources that are required to drag them across the finish line, and this is only the "natural" way it should be since you let them in the school, after all. So says Althouse, perhaps somewhat reasonably.
But wait, isn't the whole mantra of affirmative action in admissions that the students you admit that way are already "fully qualified" to be enrolled and just needed that tiny little boost from AA to get into the school, where they belong just as much as the Asian kid you screwed over? I'm pretty sure I've heard that about a million times. An outright lie? I'm shocked.
Levi,
I feel for you. I love teaching and have been doing it at university level since 1982.
On the other hand, there is so much BS, like we are seeing here, that I could never do it full time.
As an adjunct, what I got paid never made up more than 15% or so of my total income. That gave me the luxury of being able to tell the administrators to fuck off if the BS ever got too deep. It never did and I never did but knowing that I could was comforting.
John Henry
"Of course, it's one thing to identify a goal, another to actually achieve it. But it's quite another thing to jump ahead to your own ideas of what would be necessary to achieve the goal and to attribute to those who adopted the goal the means that you think would be needed to achieve it."
It's easy to hear the dog whistle though, NATURALLY. The grades will be adjusted based on race, this is inevitable.
Crack, as usual:
"Whites have weird ideas of to build a country, because they always start out thinking about themselves - and not giving a damn about anybody else.
Not giving a damn about anybody else leads to killing."
This is same Crack who wants to discriminate against my children because of his skin color. Well, he surely cares about me - but I think I would be better off if he stops caring about me, and just tries to make himself better.
"I'd suggest immediately, and vocally, advocating for the institution to start engaging in the discussion on the side of reparations.."
Crack, I believe you need to start thinking how much you will have to pay me, because of all the racial discrimination that you enjoyed at my expense.
IMHO affirmative action in college admissions has outlived its usefulness. I join other commenters here who disapprove of any goal defined in terms of ethnic group characteristics. I would like to see colleges and universities that are 100% color blind.
Forbes,
By far, you are my favorite commenter - delivering that truly flavorful racism:
"If it's not acceptable to have minority students--diversity admissions--languish at the bottom of the class, then don't admit them."
So now we're being kept out of school again, those of us from areas the government keeps resources away from, which - it has been proven - result in us not doing as well.
Slavery has to be right around the corner after that.
"Secondly, they're not disproportionally at the bottom of the class. As admitted, they're inferior students based on grades and standardized tests--as other than the diversity criteria, they wouldn't have been admitted."
Y'know, if I was a white guy, I'd be a little bit more circumspect about how I sling the word "inferior" around, in discussions of others. Why? No reason, really, just history and all we've learned from it about those who think in such terms, that's all.
Like a lot of white people, I think you need to re-study American history, because your assumptions leave a lot to be desired - based as they are on misinformation.
Students, by definition, can't be inferior - that term's reserved only for a teacher's ability to reach them,...
The real world called.
Gordon Ramsay doesn't give a shit about your background or your underrepresentation or academic weakness.
Oh, and that enlightened liberal mind Steve Jobs, didn't give a shit either.
John,
"Setting kids up for failure like this is corrosive as Hell. They will spend the rest of their lives looking in the mirror and seeing a failure who could not complete college."
Not black kids - we damn whitey.
Francisco D,
"Crackhead,
You live in an interesting world of straw men, victimology and logical non-sequitars."
Why, Thank You - Charmed, I'm sure.
"Are you capable of doing anything that produces a color-blind positive result for society?"
Nope. What's wrong with my color? Why would I want to "blind" to it? Why would I want you to be blind to it? There must be something "negative" with it - to you - if you need to make a "positive" out of it, no? Not my problem.
"Is that something you have the slightest interest in?"
Nope.
Because color isn't the problem - racism is the problem.
See?
You've been fighting for a "negative" all along,...
Hyphenated American,
"This is same Crack who wants to discriminate against my children because of his skin color."
That's right - one day, I looked in the mirror, saw that I was black, and knew killing runaway Russian kids was my true calling.
AFTER I lectured them on race relations.
Dude, when I punish, I punish,...
Well, my comment didn't make it past the moderator. Not surprised as there has to be room for all those brilliant Crack comments.
"That's right - one day, I looked in the mirror, saw that I was black, and knew killing runaway Russian kids was my true calling."
You want to discriminate against my children because of their skin color. But no, it seems like I am lecturing you on racism, since you are afraid most of the time to respond.
Funny thing, Russian Jews have this effect on some black racists - it has something to do with the fact that I have no guilt, and you know it, and you are terrified of people like me. You cannot shame me into giving your handouts - material or emotional.
Anyway, did you figure why you are not upset at the black Africa that enslaved your grandparents and sold them to the White people?
"So now we're being kept out of school again, those of us from areas the government keeps resources away from, which - it has been proven - result in us not doing as well."
Weirdly, Jews and Asians came from the places with no resources, and yet prospered.
Crack, you don't need more resources to succeed in America, you need brains and hard work. Which one do you think you are missing - the brains or hard work?
"Y'know, if I was a white guy, I'd be a little bit more circumspect about how I sling the word "inferior" around, in discussions of others."
If the word fits, what can you do? If a student cannot compete with other students, then he is inferior. Don't try to race-guilt people into stop using factually accurate words.
Michael K said...
Well, my comment didn't make it past the moderator. Not surprised as there has to be room for all those brilliant Crack comments.
Ann already practices a bit of "grade inflation" in terms of what she allows crack to write and what she allows non-er..."crack-like" people to write.
Perhaps Ann is even trying to assist crack in coming up to the norm in terms of logic and reasoning standards.
Goodness knows he needs some extraordinary administrative assistance in those areas.
Noblesse oblige.
That doesn't mean the plan is to adjust grades by race and ethnicity!
Doesn't mean that it's not.
I appreciate your very honest comment at 4:52, but you need to drop the weasel words like "should." How about "has to be" instead? And instead of "Otherwise the admissions policy isn't supportable" you might write "Otherwise the value of the degree for the best minority students is cheapened to zero and minority scholars will shun our university."
If it was up to me I'd do double blind admissions, where every application was screened to remove any trace of residency or ethnicity (including extracurricular activities such as "president of the Hispanic Students club"). And if the university wound up with a student body that was 98% Asian-American (the rest being scholarship athletes), that would be quite all right with me.
Two generations ago we celebrated, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Today we seek to view weak character combined with certain skin colors as something that should be specially judged and merited.
Unknown wrote:
"IMHO affirmative action in college admissions has outlived its usefulness. I join other commenters here who disapprove of any goal defined in terms of ethnic group characteristics. I would like to see colleges and universities that are 100% color blind."
Then Mr. Unknown had better be happy with a university system that is almost entirely white and east Asian, students and facultu both.
Even if you reserve a large percentage of the admitted positions for people who come from poor families, dropouts, etc, you will always find that whites and east asians will be over- represented.
I think many people who want a colorblind admissions policy think that you will continue to have an ethnically diverse student body. You won't.
Another great MLK quote, "We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now."
Same boat, but skin color and which boat you came are acceptable handicaps by which we judge those around us, rather than important histories blending in the great melting pot.
"It's perfectly appropriate to want the students who are members of underrepresented groups to do as well as other students."
"want"? I "want" lots of things. The question is whether it is appropriate to take steps to ensure that outcome. You can try to give all your students the same opportunities. Or you can favor some over others, according to your personal whim. Which is appropriate?
I am absolutely sure that Ann does not count skin color when she awards grades. After all, she did not give it a moment's consideration when Obama ran for president.
Skipper said...
...nothing seems to have improved, or changed at all. What is the moral to be learned?
The racist bureaucrats and politicians involved in the diversity scam would say - do say - that they need to do more of same. Much more. Hence the shiny new "Diversity Plan".
Drago:
To be fair to our hostess, she tolerates a lot more. We know where she stands on a number of issues, and that often there is dissent to her positions. We also recently learned some basic guidelines that she follows in order to moderate comments per thread. She clearly permits considerable but not open latitude to the scope of her posters' comments. I think it's a learning and growing experience for everyone involved. As well as an opportunity to practice manual moderation (i.e. ignore, skip), which is a welcome peculiarity of virtual communities.
It's an idiotic policy indicating that administrative encirclement has reached morbid levels, regardless.
"It's much worse to just stick to affirmative action because you think it's right as a matter of principle. It needs to work in practice, and practice needs to mean much more than that the classroom looks diverse."
Well, what if it *doesn't* work in practice? The strongest advocates of affirmative action are united in assuring us that it has not worked yet. If it worked, it would no longer be needed. So, how long should we wait? Is three generations of imbeciles enough?
Drago:
The beauty of following doctrines of inherited and collective sin, is that everyone, without exception, is caught in its trap. In practice (i.e. reality), adherents to this degenerate religion are self-refuting. By these standards, there is not a single human being who has standing, other than through force (e.g. democratic), to comment or demand anything of anyone else.
Me, at 5:01pm: "It all sounds like a setup for continuing round-robin administration discussions regarding how the minority students admitted via melanin-content who don't "succeed" have been failed by the institution and institutional racism and institutional failure to "check privilege" rather than by lack of hard work or innate capability of the student."
Crack at 6:45pm: "Students, by definition, can't be inferior - that term's reserved only for a teacher's ability to reach them,..."
Entirely and utterly predictable.
Has it occurred to any of these "diversity" gurus to actively recruit conservative black students?
Crack,
Thos black kids may blame whitey for their failure and they may even be right in blaming whitey. In some cases, at least.
It may be comforting to have someone else to blame but that doesn't make them successful. More importantly, it doesn't make them see themselves as successful.
You are a case in point. You have told us over and over and over how you have failed in life and how it is all whitey's fault. Whether is is or not, the fact remains, you are by your own admission a failure. It is gnawing at you like rabies. We see it here every day.
Does blaming me for some unspecified racism somehow make you a success?
John Henry
UW-Madison can get the STEM course diversity it wants (more black people) by recruiting Africans. Then maybe it wouldn't have to lower standards.
Does anyone remember Crackemcee mentioning reparations before the Te Nehisi Coates article?
Reparations is an idea that comes and goes like clockwork and has for the past 150 years.
I was wondering wonder if Crack had ever heard of it before the Atlantic article. I don't remember him mentioning it here but he may have.
I went to his blog to look and see he is also pushing reparations for the Caribbean.
Woo-Hoo! Where do I sign up? As a Puerto Rican I should be in line for some some of those groovy repay bucks given the Spanish history of slavery here.
Make my check out to John R Henry, Crack. Send it to PO Box 1128, Fajardo PR 00738.
If I can get it in time for the big 7/25 holiday weekend I'd appreciate it.
Make it a big one. Slavery was a lot more intense and longer lasting here than elsewhere.
John Henry
"Well, my comment didn't make it past the moderator. Not surprised as there has to be room for all those brilliant Crack comments."
Nothing of yours was deleted.
You are mistaken.
Hyphenated American: "Anyway, did you figure why you are not upset at the black Africa that enslaved your grandparents and sold them to the White people?"
Well, yes crack did.
Crack knows he can't get paid via that route.
So, you know, water under the bridge and all that.
What? You thought crack was making some sort of "principled" stand?
LOL
mtrobertsattorney said...
Has it occurred to any of these "diversity" gurus to actively recruit conservative black students?
We have already been reliably informed by Massuh Crack that conservative blacks aren't "real" blacks.
So, clearly, those blacks couldn't be counted towards any quota goals.
Crack,
The problem is not racism, the problem is assuming racism is the problem.
@Levi at 3:01: I think the best thing to do in that case would be to publicize, loudly, the administrator's remark. No good can come of secrecy in that case, but a discussion on Campus might be helpful.
Althouse wrote, In short, representational equity in grading is a goal. Who doesn't share that goal? It's not outrageous unless it's outrageously banal: We want all our students to do well.
That should be accomplished in GRADE SCHOOL, not college.
It's one thing to oppose affirmative action in admissions, but don't let that opposition make you too quick to see dysfunction in the way it is implemented.
This policy at the COLLEGE level is inherently and intentionally dysfunctional.
It's perfectly appropriate to want the students who are members of underrepresented groups to do as well as other students.
Just wanting it doesn't mean you'll get it.
If you don't approve of affirmative action, you might jump to predict that there will be abuses in the grading.
The policy itself is an abuse of education.
If white liberals loved AND LIVED diversity they'd all be renting rat-infested slums on the west side of Chicago, dodging gangbanger bullets but extolling the virtue of bars on their windows. Instead, I find them in upscale - not economically diverse - neighborhoods, sending their kids to the University lab school, and coming into contact with blacks who are connected to the same snooty institutions that criticize suburban whites - cause they're racist doncha know. Sickening hypocrisy.
When asking the question, "will teachers ever be required, to consider race when awarding grades?", remember that in January the Departments of Justice and Education issued "guidance" to K-12 Schools which "declares that schools’ disciplinary policies cannot have a 'disparate impact' on one particular group" without violating Titles IV & VI Obama administration guidelines could lead to racial quotas in school discipline.
Not black kids - we damn whitey.
This is really the only thing Obama has in common with other Black Americans...the inability to take responsibility for his actions and choices.
TreeJoe,
"Two generations ago we celebrated, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.""
Yes, but - as most whites will - you ignore, just a few sentences before that, in the same speech, he said:
"America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked 'insufficient funds.'"
In other words, whites expect MLK's results - everybody being cool with each other - without honoring MLK's words.
And that's deceptive, and dishonest, and no way to get people to see you as an honest broker,...
Terry,
"I think many people who want a colorblind admissions policy think that you will continue to have an ethnically diverse student body. You won't."
Another reason why blacks call it a "racist" colorblind policy:
The results of all their solutions equal good ol' Jim Crow,...
Jupiter,
"You can try to give all your students the same opportunities. Or you can favor some over others, according to your personal whim. Which is appropriate?"
When you've not only favored one group over the other, but brutally and deliberately punished the other for 400 years - which included giving all the credit and rewards for their work to the favored students - I think favoring some over the others, according to our personal whim, is just about the finest policy man can devise. A true upgrade in his station.
Why?
Because, if American justice had to rely on the likes of you, or the favored group, it would never exist,….
TreeJoe,
"Another great MLK quote, "We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now.""
Atta boy! If I hear one more white idiot quoting that same single damn line from the Dream speech,...
"Same boat, but skin color and which boat you came are acceptable handicaps by which we judge those around us, rather than important histories blending in the great melting pot."
I'll say - here's another great KIng quote:
"They owe us a lot of money.”
Jupiter,
"How long should we wait? Is three generations of imbeciles enough?"
Spoken like someone who - with a straight face - will deny blacks have ever lived in a hostile environment created by whites. But whatever, let's get to the meat of you imbecility:
Who's "we," Mr. Jupiter? Please, be specific.
Blacks are trying to fix the effects of four hundred years of unrepentantly vicious white pathology on us - their own fellow Americans - is three generations enough? Considering we did nothing to deserve the treatment we've received from whites, should the country be willing to do more, if necessary?
Is this is a country, to you, Mr. Jupiter? If it is, what is our obligation to one another, you and I? Is it to look for solutions to our problems or search for the quickest and cheapest route for us to cut each other loose? Your answer's very important because blacks died for one of them:
Gicing whites the benefit of the doubt,...
n.n,
"Drago:
The beauty of following doctrines of inherited and collective sin, is that everyone, without exception, is caught in its trap."
Yep - sorry, white people, but there will be no running away:
If you want to say our constitution means something, then you'll have to give blacks credit for making it mean something, because - using the same brilliant reasoning skills exhibited here - whites are fighting it all the way.
That's the legacy,...
mtrobertsattorney,
"Has it occurred to any of these "diversity" gurus to actively recruit conservative black students?"
Nope - too busy with the ones with social skills,...
John,
"Crack,
"Thos black kids may blame whitey for their failure and they may even be right in blaming whitey. In some cases, at least."
Wow - what a breath of fresh air! Good job, JH!
"It may be comforting to have someone else to blame but that doesn't make them successful."
That makes no sense. Where's the "comfort" in being abused? Or admitting it? About our own country doing it to us - comforting? Try terrifying. Your neighbors? That's "comforting" to you?
And, if you can admit the game is rigged (which is what whitey is taking the blame for, remember?) then, why are you on us to be successful?
The game is rigged.
Sure, a few slip through - we all know their names - but what about the majority? Isn't expecting them to succeed, in a scam set-up, without destroying those obstacles, just another form of punishment? Perpetrated by you - the supposedly caring white person?
"More importantly, it doesn't make them see themselves as successful."
Dude, blacks have survived more than almost any other people in this country - and done more to change it - so, when we see ourselves, it's not the same image you see. In many ways, we judge success differently, just as Native Americans do:
White's corruption didn't make us a lesser people, just whites themselves.
"You are a case in point. You have told us over and over and over how you have failed in life and how it is all whitey's fault."
Really? I said that? I "failed at life"? How can that be when "it is all whitey's fault"? If I "may even be right in blaming whitey," then isn't failure what whitey is taking the blame for? You're getting confused.
"Whether is is or not, the fact remains, you are by your own admission a failure."
If I said that, rather than how you put it through your filter and re-phrased it, which seems to be the case. You can't speak for me. Sorry - that ain't my claim.
"It is gnawing at you like rabies."
White supremacy gnaws at everyone it effects. A black woman told me, today, she thinks about it's effects on her every day. "How much money those white folks made off us." Whites are crazy to think we don't think about it, feel it, and damn them for it.
That's not an admission of failure - but of living with the corrupt - which is a totally different way of looking at things, than you're claiming.
"We see it here every day."
You see the writings of a human being trying to empty an ocean of white racism with a paper cup - and you've been part of it.
"Does blaming me for some unspecified racism somehow make you a success?"
See what you did there? You went from how it "may even be right in blaming whitey" to trying to wiggle out of blame for the appearance (the appearance!) of my own success - and, not only did you think I'd fall for it but, you tried that ugly sleight-of-hand in only one post, where you started out trying to be honest, and posed as my reasonable friend.
Why should anyone trust whites who behave so unethically?
John,
"Does anyone remember Crackemcee mentioning reparations before the Te Nehisi Coates article?"
You insult me, John. Not only did you try to deceive me, earlier, but now I'm a follower. A man without his own ideas, who waits for others to tell him what to do.
You poor fool.
The Case For Reparations came out on May 21, 2014.
Here's a post of mine from February 26, 2014. It's title?
"Duck Dynasty Didn't Hear It But Reparations Are Coming"
Which means - get ready for it - instead of following, I predicted this movement's current ascension, and I did it based only on reading my culture.
[Sticks tongue out at you.]
"Reparations is an idea that comes and goes like clockwork and has for the past 150 years."
But whites - having no clue to culture - never know when, why, where, or how. Now THAT's a comfort.
"I was wondering wonder if Crack had ever heard of it before the Atlantic article. I don't remember him mentioning it here but he may have."
You and Cliven Bundy, just-a wondering about negroes.
"I went to his blog to look and see he is also pushing reparations for the Caribbean."
Yep. Don't know how you missed it,...
Drago,
"Hyphenated American: "Anyway, did you figure why you are not upset at the black Africa that enslaved your grandparents and sold them to the White people?"
Well, yes crack did."
It has something to do with whites having guns - a little fact whites like Hyphenated American like to leave out, when re-telling that tale with the usual racist storyline of whites as innocents and blacks, the craven sellers of their countrymen.
Thinks it makes them look good.
It's really how they got their reputation as history's biggest liars,...
exhelodrvr1,
"Crack,
The problem is not racism, the problem is assuming racism is the problem."
Ooooh, so we blacks are only "assuming" we've been cheated, raped, robbed, deceived, deprived, mutilated, castrated, burned, lied to, murdered, lynched, and hung, because of our race.
We, our parents and other relations, our friends, associates, etc., have all been mistaken - for 400 years - and, now, a white man is clearing it up for us because what do we know about our own oppression by whites?
All we do is assume things, silly blacks.
Thanks for clearing that up - I'll tell the others,...
Gagg,
"If white liberals loved AND LIVED diversity they'd all be renting rat-infested slums on the west side of Chicago,…"
The same is true of conservatives (white flight) but, aside from lip service, they're no better - and their lip service sucks even more, with all that racist "Democrat Plantation" bullshit thrown in, so what's your point?
You're no better when hypocrisy's the issue. As a matter of fact, if you're a Republican, whites today are so far, from what Lincoln envisioned this party to be, it's so much worse it's too embarrassing to think about.
The party that freed the slaves - siding with racists. I spit on what whites have done to a proud institution, with a "grand" history, and a sickening present.
Study the creation of the ghetto and black poverty - that was white people's doing - not liberals or conservatives, but WHITES. And, the sooner whites end THAT insane finger-pointing, and accept their role in all of this country's failures, the sooner we might get somewhere,..
Here's a simple of rule of thumb, folks.
Don't fret about disparate impact in grades, unless you are also clamoring for more diversity in the starting lineups of the sports teams.
Not the same thing, you say? Correct. Achievement in only one of those two things is highly correlated to cognitive ability.
And then what does THAT tell you?
There's a reason this whole subject area is taboo. Best leave it alone.
Extending my previous comments . . .
If you are like most of us, you will think it absurd that someone would worry about the disparate ethnic makeup of the starting lineup in a particular sports team.
And you would be right. The starting lineup is color blind in every sense of that term. It is based solely on merit - excellence in the 'subject' at hand. Here, we celebrate high achievement, and shed no tears for those on the bench. It's just the way things are, and should be. If you've tried your best, and 2nd or 3rd string is all you can achieve, be proud of that. That you developed to the limits of your latent potential, is all that one can expect to do. Good on you.
So why should it be any different, and why should our expectations and contentment with the results, be any different in any other venue? Hummm? Why?
The Crack Emcee said...
The same is true of conservatives (white flight) . . .
Rather than unbecomingly disparaging it, you ought perhaps to try it, and encourage it for your people.
A concrete urban jungle is far from the natural setting for mankind.
Our genes and natures are still tuned to the environments of 10,000 years ago, and those are decidedly NOT big, densely packed cities.
Perhaps the constant feelings of restlessness and simmering anger, frequently on display in your tribe, would dissipate if more of you got out of your crowded warrens and let yourselves breathe a bit.
The Whites-in-flight are on to something. Might be wise to learn from it.
Big cities suck. And you KNOW it's true.
It should be the students who work hard and attend class get good grades. Otherwise the admissions policy isn't supportable.
-------
I'm having trouble with this sentiment and have decided I agree with it if it were to say:
Admissions policies aren't supportable if students can't get good grades even if they work hard and attend class.
Obviously, there are some students who may not have to work all that hard to get good grades because they are of such high intellect. And students who work hard and attend class do not deserve good grades just because of those two factors.
Students who cannot succeed in a particular university, however, even though they are working hard and attending class, simply do not belong at that university.
"In short, representational equity in grading is a goal. Who doesn't share that goal? "
Me!
But SomebodyHas goes off the rails when he starts talking about ethnic groups achieving their potentials. In that context, ethnicity is just an aggregate; what matters is if each individual achieves his potential, and/or is free to pursue his goals.
I couldn't care in the slightest if the great majority of our physicists were of Northern European ancestry, and our pro basketball players were mostly from Africa, and practically of our restaurants were run by Vietnamese, as long as African-Americans who were talented in math and science weren't discouraged from becoming physicists because of their ethnicity ( and so on.)
"Cracks World, Cracks World! Party Time! Excellent!"
What too many people here fail to realize is that The Crack Emcee's position has been taught, learned and internalized by many Blacks. The anger that has been internalized will continue to be harmful to those who carry it. And those same people will believe it is the proof of their own suppression. Self-analysis will fail, as is obvious in this thread.
The same is true on the reservations. Native Americans suffer many of the same pathologies. What might have been externally imposed is now self-imposed. And those who adopt the pathologies vigorously impose them on others (e.g. "not really black/native").
How anybody can "help" - whether with affirmative action or any other method - is beyond me. Helpers will be blamed for any perceived failures. My best idea: Give up and save yourself all the bull shit.
Sorry, Crack. Slavery is illegal in America. There will not be "reparations" without overwhelming force. The "progressive" South African solution is both illegal and illegitimate. Think of a better approach to reconcile your differences. Besides, integration has occurred despite your own poor experience and opposition.
That said, this started with black slavers, merchants, and managers. It continued with black slavers, merchants, and managers in the Americas. In following your doctrines of inherited and collective sin, blacks do not have moral standing to comment or demand anything. Fortunately, most people do not adhere to this degenerate religion.
Birkel wrote:
"Helpers will be blamed for any perceived failures."
They should be. "proportional representation" is one of those white liberal things. It is not a universal value, the people that benefit from it don't believe in "proportional representation". You ever hear a black guy say that there are too many black people who are professional athletes? Ever hear a woman complain that there are too many women working as school teachers or as human resource managers?
But you will hear white liberals say that there are too many white CEO's, politicians, college professors, etc.
I believe it has something to do with social class as well. You will hear poor and working class white people complain about CEO's making too much money, but not that there are too many white CEO's.
I'm restoring a comment I accidentally deleted:
n.n has left a new comment on your post "The University of Wisconsin-Madison's "'Diversity'...":
SomeoneHasToSayIt:
Large metropolises suffer from structural inequality which follows from overpopulation and stacked, disparate economic, social, etc. classes. Democratic leverage is exploited (e.g. redistributive change) and sponsors corruption of both public and private parties. The welfare compensation sabotages character development and promotes dysfunctional communities, families, and individuals. The "diversity" in those areas is isolated and largely dysfunctional.
The same is true of conservatives (white flight)
Blacks can't live in nice places unless whites are around?
n.n,
"Sorry, Crack. Slavery is illegal in America."
That's the only true thing you've written here and even that was done by the hand of blacks guiding events by our individual, yet collective, actions. I.E., if no slaves ever ran away, there wouldn't have been a slave "problem" or need for a Civil War.
"There will not be 'reparations' without overwhelming force."
Did I ever deny that? No. I said there will be reparations. Whites have been murderers before. Only you seem to claim you're different now, even as you continue to threaten us with death as you always have.
You're a very, very dangerously confused people.
"The 'progressive' South African solution is both illegal and illegitimate."
Says you. White America supported Apartheid. You screwed the pooch. Nobody's listening to you now.
"Think of a better approach to reconcile your differences."
Nope, slow and steady - directly through your concrete heart - that appears to be the method whites require, so we're staying with that.
Sorry, didn't ask for your input, and don't need it.
"Besides, integration has occurred despite your own poor experience and opposition."
Wow - that's EXACTLY how delusional (or uninformed) you are, or have to be, to say that in 2014:
Douglas Massey went to a University of Chicago trustees' dinner a while back, and a prominent North Shore woman asked about his work. He explained that he's a U. of C. sociologist who studies racial and ethnic segregation.
"She said, 'Oh, there's no discrimination on the North Shore. Anybody can move up to Wilmette or Glencoe.'
"I said, 'If it were really open, Wilmette would be about 20 percent black. Would you want that?' You could see the answer on her face. They want to think that 'integration' means they know a black neurosurgeon who lives six blocks away."
Since that encounter, Massey and his research associate and coauthor Nancy Denton have published American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. The book doesn't shout, it just explains the workings of racism so clearly that you're a little embarrassed you didn't understand them all along,...
And you, Sir, most definitely, do not.
Why whites speak at all - and not learn their country's real history and make-up - is a mystery,....
I've said here before, as a non-white guy I understand white privilege (though I see it more as an annoyance than as oppression and believe it can be overcome/ignored by anyone who genuinely wants to).
So on many topics, even though I disagree with Crack, I see the direction he's coming from. But dude, how are you going to explain this affirmative action shit? How are you going to say the Asian kid who gets screwed worse than anyone in this system has had 400 years of privilege? What did he do to any black person? His grandfather who was born in this country may have been herded at gunpoint into a concentration camp within the last century, can any black person who moved ahead of him with an SAT score 450 points lower claim the same?
Asian kids growing up in the same South Philadelphia craphole in the same schools as the black kids who assault them, how do you justify taking it out of their hide again in admissions?
How can you morally justify it, Crack? It's monstrous.
n.n,
"Large metropolises suffer from structural inequality which follows from overpopulation and stacked, disparate economic, social, etc. classes."
Bullshit. Our current "structural inequality" came from the creation of a white kleptocracy.
"Democratic leverage is exploited (e.g. redistributive change) and sponsors corruption of both public and private parties."
Bullshit. Corrupt whites were exploiting everyone else for centuries - under violence - what's happening now is a corrective.
"The welfare compensation sabotages character development and promotes dysfunctional communities, families, and individuals."
Bullshit. Whites had no good "character" traits to speak of when living under a system of open violence they created and now long for as "the old days" and "traditional values" - they destroyed the country's hope for cohesion with their blind stubborn hypocrisy.
"The "diversity" in those areas is isolated and largely dysfunctional."
Bullshit. The only thing that's "dysfunctional" is white American culture and those who adhere to it.
The rest of us are merely "maladjusted"….
damikesc,
"Blacks can't live in nice places unless whites are around?"
Not according to the government, you moron - that's the whole point of the reparations movement - you've convinced yourself (based on lies) the plunder stopped at slavery.
Jesus, you guys are so ignorant, it makes me wonder why I talk to you.
The children from slave families grasp things easier,...
damikesc: "Blacks can't live in nice places unless whites are around?"
Well, Jesse told us that blacks can't learn math unless they are sitting next to whites.
Which is true.
Since Jesse said it, it must be.
To think otherwise is racist.
So, that would explain cracks innumeracy. He didn't have whitey sufficiently close enough to him while he studied math. Otherwise, based on his intellectual self-assessment he would be an astrophysicist right now!
Alas, for want of a nail, the shoe was lost, ....you know the rest.
Hey, Everybody, segregation's been solved - NOT:
"Residential segregation is the glue that holds the whole system of racial oppression together."
For different reasons, conservatives, liberals, blacks, and whites alike have done their best to evade this point even as they spend years discussing what to do about "persistent poverty," the "underclass," "inner-city problems," or whatever tomorrow's phrase may be. If American Apartheid doesn't change the world, it may at least make the debate more honest.
And - BOY - do we need a little more honesty,...
"Representational grading" is the use of a factor, skin color, to determine the correctness of a suppossedly objective measure of academic achievement.
If you want objectivity, we already know how to achieve it.
Try grading double blind with only random ID numbers for students, not available to the graders, and Scantron sheets autograding the multiple choice testing in all classes. Any possible racism is eliminated, using a method that is available at essentially zero cost to the university.
Of course, the opportunity for graft, bureaucratic bloat, political indoctrination, corrupt practices and high wages are minimal, so I don't expect the university to adopt this method.
You honkie professors better check your privilege and adjust them damn grades! -- Sincerely, any college football team
Instapundit says he did NOT delete the "apparently."
And I do believe the grades will be adjusted. Why? Putting aside liberal guilt, its the easiest way for lazy academics and administrations to reach the on-paper target.
Crack--
Speaking from experience, I see. When your only tool is a hammer, feel free to pound away at the racist nails you spot. Hitler reference is a nice touch, too. It's called projection--it's sticking out. And ad hominem is not a convincing argument, however much you sling epithets. A suggestion however: try a reading comprehension class. Your straw men are bad enough, twisting plain meaning into incomprehension is a rare talent--though one best left undiscovered. Cheers.
Quick survey: Which white person would be willing to sit next to crack so that he could better familiarize himself with basic statistics?
Of course, statistics is racist, so there is that hurdle that must be overcome.
I expect our resident lefties to be first up on the volunteer list.
Look, ranting about it on Ann’s blog isn’t going to make any difference. UW is going to do what it takes to insure that the right number of “under-represented” students graduates. Ann will do her part because she believes in the principle. So the question for people who are going to interact with UW’s graduates is, what are you going to do?
You may want to see if the doctor who’s going to operate on you graduated from a school that had UW’s policies. Or if you can’t get that far into the weeds, you may want to avoid dealing with the types of people who you suspect are the beneficiaries of the kind of policies that UW advocates. Luckily, they are easy to spot.
Sound unfair? It is, but it's a rational response. It’s not the policy I would have proposed for UW. But the faculty at UW is running a business, a very successful business. And in their industry, this is the kind of policy that’s considered appropriate. But keep in mind that the faculty and administration at UW don’t have to live with the product they produce. Similarly, the people who built the GM cars with the faulty ignitions were not the ones who were killed.
I hope you all know that Crack isn't authentically black.
Crack,
I apologize for calling you a failure. I may have misunderstanding what you have been saying.
You have repeatedly said that you cannot, as a black man, succeed in the US because of "whitey". So if you view yourself as not succeeding, I took it to mean that you view yourself as failing.
You also seem to be under the impression that only a "few" blacks are able to succeed. I take that as meaning that you view the rest as failures.
BTW: I would disagree about the few. Seems like many blacks do succeed. As in being able to get an education, a skill, get and keep a job, not get in trouble with the law and so on. I would guess it is a majority of all blacks but we can argue about the exact numbers elsewhere if you like.
In any event if I misunderstood you viewing yourself in particular and blacks in general as failures, I apologize and retract the statement.
(Is my reparations check in the mail yet?)
John Henry
John,
"You have repeatedly said that you cannot, as a black man, succeed in the US because of "whitey". So if you view yourself as not succeeding, I took it to mean that you view yourself as failing."
If the story is "man against the world" bet on the world. - Frank Zappa, who knew that man isn't a failure, but that the world will crush you.
"You also seem to be under the impression that only a "few" blacks are able to succeed. I take that as meaning that you view the rest as failures."
Why don't you stop trying to "take that," as you see it, and accept it as I say it? That's your problem - you've got no skills for assessing what's said. Everything is filtered through WHITE.
"BTW: I would disagree about the few. Seems like many blacks do succeed."
Many do - but when the majority are segregated into ghettos, how do you know about their lives?
"As in being able to get an education, a skill, get and keep a job, not get in trouble with the law and so on."
You don't see black lives, at all, if you think that's true.
"I would guess it is a majority of all blacks but we can argue about the exact numbers elsewhere if you like."
No need - I'm aware of my family and friends - how do you know these things? Statistics, I'd bet - no real intimate experience with blacks, today, to speak of. You're segregated, too, no?
"In any event if I misunderstood you viewing yourself in particular and blacks in general as failures, I apologize and retract the statement.
(Is my reparations check in the mail yet?)"
You're a nut,...
"It has something to do with whites having guns - a little fact whites like Hyphenated American like to leave out, when re-telling that tale with the usual racist storyline of whites as innocents and blacks, the craven sellers of their countrymen."
So now, Crack is trying to explain thousands of years of slavery in Africa - by claiming it was because of white people with guns.
Crack, poor kid, clearly does not know the history of Africa and slavery.
Oh, Crack, I noticed how much you are afraid to reply to me. A Russian Jew who does not feel guilty - must be terrifying to you. You cannot send me on the guilt trip, you have to use reason and logic with me.
Anyway, speaking of the funny crap you write....
Cities with few white people with complete black control work out even worse for blacks than cities with many blacks. Apparently, when you put all the Cracks together, you get poverty and corruption, nothing else. Think about it - maybe the you and people like you are the problem, not the white people? Maybe, if you want to succeed, you need to talk to whites and Asians, learn from us?
"I hope you all know that Crack isn't authentically black."
Crack is authentically brown, as in "brown-shirt".
"I said, 'If it were really open, Wilmette would be about 20 percent black. Would you want that?' You could see the answer on her face. They want to think that 'integration' means they know a black neurosurgeon who lives six blocks away."
You equate integration with a numerical value. If a black can afford to own there, he/she could.Expensive suburbs are just that, expensive and therefore populated by those who can afford to live there which excludes those who can't. Otherwise why spend the big bucks just to live next to some guy with a beater parked on the drive way?
" n.n said...
Sorry, Crack. Slavery is illegal in America. There will not be "reparations" without overwhelming force. The "progressive" South African solution is both illegal and illegitimate. Think of a better approach to reconcile your differences. Besides, integration has occurred despite your own poor experience and opposition."
N.N The SA solution is their solution. It's legality is contingent upon their laws and according to their current laws, it is. Is it illegitimate? probably but then then again so was apartheid. Having landed yesterday from Joburg I can tell you the whites understand that now. Apartheid was affirmative action for whites. Affirmative action now works against them. Ultimately SA will be Africanized. Whether or not that is a good thing in terms of the general economic advancement is irrelevant, it's a black majority country and the majority will ultimately have it's way. For now, it's still a cushy country for whites who have money (but rapidly deteriorating for whites who don't since there is an African first policy for hiring) and still have connections and those who are in their mid-thirties with kids who are alright financially emigration is a hard one to swallow. Nevertheless those whites know that for their kids emigration is largely inevitable and the wiser ones are saving their money for their kids foreign college education in the countries they expect their kids to emigrate to such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada or the UK. So while as long as the country doesn't make a sudden and dramatic change for the worse (for them) they believe that can manage to live out their lives in SA before there is a nationalization of their property and wealth. Will it happen? I don't have a crystal ball, I'm not saying that it is inevitable but it does appear to have a high probability. It did happen in neighboring countries and rather quickly at that.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा