Bush: My Quotas are Better Than Your Quotas!

Well, George W. Bush has clarified matters: He is against racial quotas. And he is for racial quotas. Whew! I feel so much better now.

In the big affirmative action cases on the Supreme Court docket, Graz and Hamacher v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, white students are suing the University of Michigan/Ann Arbor's undergraduate and law schools, respectively. Like most major public universities, "U of M," as it is known in Ann Arbor, has bounced from one stealth quota admissions system to another, as lawsuits by white applicants whom the system has discriminated against, have bounced after them. The current rigged game for undergraduate admissions has the school giving black, Hispanic, and American Indian applicants 20 points out of a 150-point maximum, based solely on their race or ethnicity. To understand what an outrage this is, consider that an applicant can receive only 12 points for a perfect SAT score (1600). A perfect application essay only counts for three points, but such essays are of dubious value, anyway.

The purpose of the 20 points is to rig the admissions process, while claiming that race is only being considered as "a factor," rather than being "the factor." After all, U of M didn't automatically award affirmative action group members the whole 150 points!

As Solicitor General Ted Olson observes in his brief on behalf of the Bush Administration, U of M "believes that diversity 'increase[s] the intellectual vitality of [its] education, scholarship, service and communal life.'"

I'd like someone to explain how admitting intellectually incompetent people, while shutting out competent people, will increase the "intellectual vitality" of a campus. Indeed, since affirmative action is inseparable from the regime of multiculturalism, which at U of M and elsewhere represses intellectual and political dissent, affirmative action is poison to intellectual vitality. As for communal life, affirmative action has brought about a form of self-segregation, whereby black students shun whites, choosing to eat only with other blacks, and even demanding racially segregated dormitories.

In their defense, U of M officials have protested that 'everyone's doing it!' And they are right. Every major public university in America has been violating the civil rights of white and Asian students for over thirty years. But such pervasiveness doesn't make the practices any less criminal or immoral. The practices are forbidden by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act, and even by the unfortunate 1978 majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bakke case.

The Bakke decision, written by Justice Lewis Powell, forbade racial quotas, but permitted race to be "a factor" – just not THE factor – in admissions decisions. Powell's opinion was unfortunate, because it diverged from the other majority justices, in permitting race to figure in admissions decisions, and because it was an invitation to university officials, most of whom supported the anti-white racism of affirmative action, to thoroughly corrupt the admissions process through re-defined, stealth quotas. And so they did.

Then there is the matter of the President. I never thought there could be a worse corruption problem regarding higher education, than socialists' support of affirmative action. But there is: Conservatives' support of affirmative action. The President has said, "At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes perspective students, based solely on their race." And yet, what he proposes is ... a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes perspective students, based solely on their race.

Solicitor General Ted Olson has argued on President George W. Bush's behalf that there are "race-neutral" methods to achieve "diversity." Olson argues that in Texas and California, campus racial diversity rose after these "race-neutral" methods were employed.

The methods for increasing the percentage of black and Hispanic college students embraced by the Bush brothers have been to guarantee admission to the flagship state universities of their respective states – Texas and Florida – to graduating high school seniors in the top 10% (in Texas) or 20% (in Florida) of their graduating high school class. These plans' critics – including Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY) – have rightfully pointed out, that since many minority schools are de facto segregated, these schemes are merely quotas. (What the critics don't point out, is that the majority of black folks like their schools segregated. Segregation today is something black folks choose for themselves, and impose on other groups, not something those evil white folks impose on blacks.)

Those segregated black schools and Hispanics schools are so bad, that their "top" graduates are no better than mediocre graduates from integrated schools. And so, just as in the Democrats' quota schemes, state schools admit black and Hispanic students with test scores hundreds of points lower than white and Asian admits, while rejecting superior white and Asian applicants.

California has a similar, 4% scheme. And in California, applicants are encouraged to emphasize, in their application essays, "hurdles" they had to overcome, which is a coded way to inform admissions committees that they are black or Hispanic.

Hillary Clinton has also criticized such schemes as being less than ideal for admitting unqualified blacks and Hispanics to graduate and professional schools. What such a criticism reveals, is that for Clinton and her allies, affirmative action is not a remedy for deficits due to past discrimination, or poor schools, which are to be made up during one's undergraduate education, but a permanent racial privilege. Undergraduate affirmative action, graduate and professional school affirmative action, and affirmative action in hiring and contracting, make up an Unholy Trinity that is no longer limited to socialists.

Socialist attacks on conservative "critics" of affirmative action point out, regarding the Michigan cases, that the conservatives have not complained about "legacies" ("alumni brats" in common usage) and athletes, both of whom are admitted to schools despite failing to meet the schools' academic requirements. Conservatives have long dodged such issues or insisted they are irrelevant, as if merit were a matter of principle, except when it has consequences they dislike. If critics of affirmative action are serious about the merit principle, they will call on their private alma mater to cease admitting alumni brats.

However, in the case of U of M and other public institutions, the alumni brats (and faculty brats) issue really is irrelevant. The admitting of unqualified alumni and faculty brats is a type of corruption endemic to campuses of allegedly highly selective OPUs (overpriced, private universities). Who ever heard of a public university alumnus seeking to get his idiot son admitted to his alma mater? However, in the OPU world, alumni brats are pervasive. (I'm not sure about faculty brats.) When I worked as a fundraiser at Columbia University fifteen years ago, my girlfriend, who was a student there (we met while I was working there), once noted to a girlfriend, "I can always tell when someone's an alumni brat, because they're so dumb." She then gave me a dirty look, because she hated admitting that in front of me, who had attended only public institutions.

OPUs refuse to divulge the numbers of alumni and faculty brats they admit, but my hunch is that they total anywhere from 10-20 % of a given OPU campus' student body, with alumni brats predominating over faculty brats.

Note too that alumni and faculty brats who are intellectually unqualified to attend their respective institutions suffer no more from "stigma" than do their incompetent classmates admitted under affirmative action.

(When older conservatives such as Thomas Sowell talk of such "stigma," they are dating themselves: Early in the history of affirmative action, some black and Hispanic affirmative action admits might have felt stigmatized. In the intervening 38 or so years, however, the merit principle has so eroded in academia, while so many institutional supports for black and Hispanic incompetence have been erected, that today's racial and ethnic quota admits wear their admissions status like a badge of courage.)

The use of athletic scholarships to juice black enrollments is such a pervasive problem among public athletic powerhouses, that even the NCAA admitted to it a few years ago. In Ann Arbor during the late 1980s, the joke among supporters of the perennial national championship contender U of M Wolverines football team, was that former star wide receiver Anthony Carter (who had since moved on to an all-pro career with the NFL's Minnesota Vikings) was so illiterate, that he couldn't sign his own name.

You can follow the merit principle, or you can have nice numbers of black and Hispanic university admits. Anyone who says you can end affirmative action, without the numbers of black and Hispanic admits falling precipitously, is a liar. The reason for this is simple: The black and Hispanic talent pool is too small to legitimately raise black and Hispanic admissions at selective schools. Hence, you can have merit, or you can have corruption.

The shallow talent pool is due either to genetic inferiority or moral inferiority.

Let's deal with blacks, since affirmative action was instituted for blacks, and rationalizations of the scheme have always revolved around blacks.

1. The explanation that is the most popular in private, but least frequently offered in public, is that of black genetic inferiority. From what I can see, most people of all races and political persuasions, including blacks, believe that blacks are genetically inferior to whites and Asians, in matters of intellect. The pedagogical ideas of black supremacists – that black kids should get test points for "rap skills," and be taught only pidgin English – suggest to me that they have less faith in black intellectual abilities than the average white supremacist does.

White socialists are no better: In 1988, at the height of the Tawana Brawley hoax, a white socialist political operative in New York told me why she and her compatriots did not point out to blacks that Tawana Brawley had never been kidnapped or raped: "You can't expect blacks to participate as equals in public discourse."

The most influential scientific theories of black intellectual inferiority have come from scholars such as J. Phillippe Rushton (Race, Evolution, and Behavior) and the late Richard Herrnstein (The Bell Curve). Such theories' extensive use of statistics notwithstanding, they depend on the twin metaphysical beliefs that intelligence is genetically determined, and that genetic characteristics are group-specific. I say "metaphysical," because I have never seen any scholar provide genetic evidence for such claims. The most sophisticated regression analysis in the world cannot substitute for genetic evidence.

2. The public explanation proferred by socialists: 'Black academic failure is due to racism, especially "racist schools."'

In fact, predominantly black schools have long been in black hands. Most urban black schools are run by incompetent, racist, black principals, and staffed with incompetent, racist, black teachers. Black "educators," leaders, and civilians have for years complained that black schools are largely staffed with uncertified teachers, as if some racist, white conspiracy kept certified teachers out of black schools. And in fact, a racist conspiracy is at fault: A racist, black conspiracy.

Most state certification exams could be passed by a bright sixth-grader. They are dumbed down on an annual basis, so as to make them easier for black and Hispanic testees who have no business teaching children. And yet, black and Hispanic teacher candidates are getting dumber faster than education officials can dumb down the tests.

What no one talks about, is that there is an abundance of competent, certified teachers available for black schools. But the teachers are predominantly white.

Most white teachers know better than to try teaching in black schools, where they are unwelcome. Those who try and make a difference, are made an example of. If a white teacher doesn't respond to the racial epithets and harassment from black students, colleagues and bosses, by quitting or transferring, black educators will arrange for parents or students to brutally assault them. And if violence doesn't do the trick, the white teachers will simply be fired.

Since the 1970s, black public school kids who speak proper English have increasingly been accused by classmates of "acting white," and beaten up. And many black "educators" support the beatings.

3. The real deal: After coming home from school, black kids spend a fraction as much time as any other racial group doing homework, devoting their time instead to watching TV and playing video games. That is to say, their parents let them fritter away their time. And that applies to middle and upper-middle-class, as well as to working-class and poor blacks. Such sloth is why, I believe, that upper-middle-class black students score no better on standardized tests than do lower-class white students.

And yet, it is understandable that black students do not apply themselves. Middle and upper-middle-class black students know that they will get accepted to top universities, without the required grades and test scores. Working-class and poor black students "know" that there is "no point" to studying, because racism will keep them from having any chance at success. They "know" this, because their middle-class black teachers and administrators constantly tell them so. But somehow, white racism did not keep those black educators from gaining employment and influence.

Since Hispanics and blacks have little in common, there's no point in talking about them in the same fashion. Hispanics are not a racial, ethnic, or religious group, and while the term initially referred to non-Spaniards from Spanish-speaking countries and their children, it has since been stretched to include both Spaniards, and non-Spanish speakers whose families have been in America for generations, even centuries. Linda Chavez, for instance, is an "Hispanic," even though, as she points out, her family has been here since 1609. "Hispanics" have long functioned, politically, to serve as blacks' political maidservants.

The one thing "Hispanic" students have in common with black students, is that the racist elites of their own group have conspired to cause them to fail academically, through the pedagogical scam known as "bilingual education." So-called bilingual – really, nonlingual – education is the greatest method ever devised to retard language acquisition. Thus have millions of children with Spanish surnames been consigned to academic failure and virtual speechlessness.

But such realities have not stopped Republicans from pandering to Hispanics, as well. George W. Bush supports bilingual education, amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants (which would end up as amnesty for all illegal immigrants), and is rumored to even support paying billions of dollars in social security benefits to illegal Mexican workers who never paid a dime in social security taxes.

George Bush's pandering to Hispanics will get him about as far as his pandering to blacks will.

George Bush is like a man who goes to the dance with a beautiful, virtuous girl, but instead of dancing with the one that brung him, ignores his girl, and spends the entire night begging for a dance with the town slut, who despises him. The more the slut insults him, the more desperately he pleads with her for a spin around the floor. And as he begs, unbeknownst to him, Lady Virtue leaves the hall.

The embrace of racial and ethnic quotas by the Bush family gives the lie to Republicans' claims that they stand for the merit principle. Unfortunately, the Bush family – sons George W. and Jeb, and father George H.W. – is no more opposed to racial quotas than their socialist "opponents" are. The Bush family is a pillar of America's elite, which includes the "Left" and the "Right," and which lacks a concept of merit. Merit is for the "little people." Like so much in America, the workings of affirmative action are a case of what socialist columnist Sidney Zion calls "the two parties against the people."

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Nicholas at adddda@earthlink.net .

>>>The purpose of the 20 points is to rig the admissions process...

This type of reverse discrimination has been going on, in one incarnation or another, for the last 30-35 years. Acceptance to institutions of higher learning should be based strictly on the merit of educational achievement and not on one's skin color. Another reason most four year college degrees, aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

I can't say I found Bruce Fein's column today at all persuasive. Did you notice that right next to it on the Washington Times's op ed page is a diametrically opposed column by Terry Eastland? Personally, I agree with Eastland.

And so does the Washington Times, as evidenced by its editorial, Bush misses the mark.

I hear them sometimes say that athelets and honor grades also get 20 points.

The only argument is this: you must earn the atheltic status and you must earn the grades.

I guess I've got a peculiar view of higher ed, but I figure that if a youngster can't do academic work, then it is a case of fraud for a selective university to admit him under any circumstances. I'll have no beef with the "athletic status" business, just as soon as universities stop admitting jocks as students, and begin admitting them instead as professional atheletes who are paid to play for the school teams, just as the school's coaches are paid to run those teams.

Thanks for the link.

In fact, fudging on affirmative action isn't necessary even at a level of electoral calculation. Prominent studies, including one by the Pew Hispanic Center highlighted recently on this page, demonstrate that the political decisions of Hispanics are not governed by the same aggrieved group-think as other minority groups. As such, efforts to woo Hispanics do not require the pandering that has historically marked minority outreach. The undiluted message of social conservatism has widespread appeal in the Hispanic community, and sticking with principles does not preclude the Republican Party from getting its fair share of votes.

If the WT editorial is right, Bush's use of AA to woo Hispanics may just result in turning them into quota-mongers the same way blacks are. If Hispanics see that the GOP is willing to give them such narcotics, they will become addicted to them, as well.

I don't like race-based preferences any more than this guy, but if he ever said the above in my presence, he'd better pray he wasn't within spitting range.

I don't like race-based preferences any more than this guy, but if he ever said the above in my presence, he'd better pray he wasn't within spitting range.

When it comes to wanting to spit at this fellow (not to mention: slug, shoot, stab, run down, etc.), you'd probably have to take a number and get in line, L.N.

These plans' critics – including Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY) – have rightfully pointed out, that since many minority schools are de facto segregated, these schemes are merely quotas.

Does Clinton think schools are segregated, or not?

Here is another reference to what she has said recently...

Students in the top 10% of high school classes are admitted into the University of Texas automatically, and the university has maintained a diverse student body, supporters maintain.
Mrs. Clinton rebuked the president’s Texas model yesterday.
“In order for that to work you have to have totally segregated schools,” Mrs. Clinton said.

So we have Mrs. Clinton saying both these things

Bush's plan is no good because schools would need to be segregated, in order to have it work. (IOW, not enough schools are segregated)
and
Bush's plan is no good because schools are segregated and it is a quota system.(IOW, too many schools are segregated)

Hillary is good at arguing any side of a case, as long as the outcome is that Bush gets bashed.

I have no problem with the top 10 % of students from each school getting admission to state schools. They have worked hard in the circumstances they found themselves in.

They've pretty well proven they will make good use of any chances they are given.

"Working-class and poor black students "know" that there is "no point" to studying, because racism will keep them from having any chance at success. They "know" this, because their middle-class black teachers and administrators constantly tell them so. But somehow, white racism did not keep those black educators from gaining employment and influence."

That's right. They are fed that lie by teachers and administrators. They are also fed that lie by "Activists" like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They thrive on keeping poor Blacks, poor, frustrated and angry. They have a vested interest in keeping the underclass dependent on them. The Democrat Party does the same thing.

Part of the problem I see is the myth that colleges provide a brand of education so you had better go to a good school. Regardless of the applicants low scores he or she can coast knowing they got into a good school. Sure Harvard sounds better than Smalltown U but that is an extreme example. Another disadvantage to this "lower standards for diversity solution" means a mediocre student displaces an outstanding student. A mediocre student typically doesnt't bring much to a class discussion, doesn't get involved, does as little as possible to get a grade. I got into an arguement with my brother about this: He was pissed that even though he got an A+ on the final he only got a B for the class because he missed 5 classes. He still gets angry about it years later.

I forgot to mention Hillary's other silly words. She thinks that, even if it might be wrong to admit students based on their skin color, it's okay to admit them based on their race.

Clinton Joins the Appeal For Affirmative Action {What Color is YOUR Character?}

“Yes, we want to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. But what makes up character?” she said, quoting from Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
“If we don’t take race as part of our character, then we are kidding ourselves.”

According to Hillary's way of thinking:

Aren't applicants with some Caucasian ancestry, who fill out forms indicating they are Black or Asian, kidding themselves? Aren't they failing to take into account part of their character, the Caucasian part of their character?

I found two exdellent op-eds criticizing Bush, but no Eastland:

It's Academic

and

'No Place in Life or Law'

Do you have a subscription to the WT granting you access to additional material, or was the Eastland piece from an earlier day? Or were you at a web site (not the WT) that had links to both pieces?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.