America lost

Jewish World Review ^ | 6/25/2003 | Linda Chavez

[Utah Girl]

Excellent article. Click on the link to give JWR some clicks and read the rest of the article.

[garbanzo]

Enough with the sackcloth and ashes already. So a handful of white and asian kids will have to go their second choice public university.

Why do people pull out Dr. King when affirmative action (which King actually supported) is discussed but not say racial profiling? Should we be a colorblind society when it comes to college admissions but not looking for potential criminal suspects?

[Reagan Man]

Justice Clarence Thomas in an eloquent dissent in the Grutter decision, recalled a speech by the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass in 1865: "What I ask for the Negro," Douglass said, "is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. . . . All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! . . . (Y)our interference is doing him positive injury." Douglass's words could not be more prophetic of the Supreme Court's mischief this week.

Grutter was a bad decision and it overshadowed the correct decision of the Justices in the Gratz case. You win some and you lose some. One or two good conservative SC appointements by PresBush and crap like this won't be happening.

[Skywalk]

WTF is your problem?

You've been posting all over with your support of affirmative action.

"handful?" I forget what year, but 100 some black students were admitted to the U of M law school when only 9 would have qualified without consideration of race. That's 100 Asian and white students at one LAW school, where classe are quite small. Why should a white or Asian student who is a superior applicant not gain entry to a prestigious law school or other program?

Add up those numbers around the country and it's not a handful.

I guess if I gas a handful of Jews as a matter of public policy it shouldn't be a big deal.

How are you on this site, how do you support freedom?

[Pukin Dog]

The real losers were those who achieve things of their own ability and merit. Those who work harder and smarter than the rest and drive the engine of society. Because of this ruling, everyone is suspect. I have seen first hand what Affirmative Action did to Naval Aviation, and trust me, you dont want that in society at large. I dont want to fly on an airline where the pilot was an Affirmative Action hire, nor do I want to have a medical procedure performed by the Affirmative Action medical school slot holder.

I feel especially sorry for Black achievers, because they will be suspect with all other blacks as to how they got to where they are. They should be the ones screaming the loudest right now, but I do not hear them at all.

This is a very bad thing, and while I understand why it was done, I don't know if it was worth it. I suppose it is better than having a Democrat pick the next Supreme Court, and have them destroy whats left of the Constitution, but damn, this is not good.

[Search4Truth]

Getting enough attention?

You really ought to refrain from making a fool out of yourself with those ignorant posts, garbanzo.

[mrustow]

Garbanzo is a bean. He creates gas.

[garbanzo]

You've been posting all over with your support of affirmative action.

I've not supported affirmative action - I'm questioning the motives of many of its opponents since they are incredibly inconsistent. To lay out my views - private institutions which don't take any state money can admit who they please. If the KKK wants to start a university and not admit blacks then I'm fine with that. Public institutions shouldn't systematically discriminate on the basis of race and religion. I think its appropiate to at least consider racial, religous, ethnic, geographic, socioeconomic, political, and other differences in an effort to make a fairly diverse community. I see no problem with that as long as there is isn't a "no _____ need apply" policy.

Such as is is, on the scale of the millions of people who matriculate each year even a few thousand isn't much and by and large these people don't end up smoking crack and turning tricks for living after being rejected from a particular school.

[Skywalk]

I'm not sure how much "diversity" should be a concern.

It's interesting that you refer to geographical diversity. That was the premier method of limiting Jewish enrollment, by limiting the amount of admittants from East Coast areas.

And Asians are not diverse? So people who often actually speak another language aren't favored, even though they qualify, but blacks who speak English from birth add so much to a class? What of mixed race people? I almost understand economically disadvantaged students getting consideration, but even that should not be unlimited, after all you gotta be able to do the work.

As for questioning motives, my mother and I are both multiracial, my girlfriend is Asian, my father was white, most of my best friends are "ethnic minorities." I'm against these policies because they are wrong. I suspect that many others on this forum feel the same way, based on principle, not on racism.

But I agree with you, a private institution should have the right to admit nothing but left-handed lesbians if they wish.

[garbanzo]

I'm not sure how much "diversity" should be a concern.

I think its a good thing for education. Part of a good education is being exposed to other ideas and people who are different than you are - it's reasonable to make it a consideration in admissions but not the consideration, which is essentially what the Court ruled.

I suspect that many others on this forum feel the same way, based on principle, not on racism.

I'd really like to believe that (and I'm not accusing everyone here and the conservative movement in general of this) but the inconsistency in policy gives me a lot of pause. For example, you have a lot of people here who think that racial profiling is a good thing, but insist on being colorblind when it comes college admissions. Dr. King's comments above are used by conservatives only when the subject is affirmative action but not with racial profiling - and come back here next MLK Day to see how much King is revered here.

Some believe that admissions should be based solely on merit but make exceptions for legacies. It's not hard to draw the conclusion that many conservatives believe that we should be a colorblind nation only when white people have something to lose.

[Skywalk]

Except it's not only white people that lose, is it?

In fact, I' d make the argument that, in terms of percentages, Asians lose more than whites. There are/were actual active quotas on how many Asians a school would admit. While whites were limited by the fact that unqualified applicants were being accepted, there were no quotas on their presence.

As for racial profiling, I think you confuse apples for oranges here. The two aren't really related. Many of us are against the WoD so that aspect of racial profiling would come to an end, but more importantly racial profiling is viewed as valid because it works when used in conjunction with other methods.

It's as goofy as saying that because I want the screeners at airports to take a harder look at Ahmed than at Granny Smith, that I should be fine and dandy with a program that discriminates against a couple of ethnic groups for the alleged "raising up" of another.

[garbanzo]

In fact, I' d make the argument that, in terms of percentages, Asians lose more than whites.

I suspect that this is the McGuffin of the conservative approach to AA - it's less of a real concern more than it allows the deflection of the issue of race.

but more importantly racial profiling is viewed as valid because it works when used in conjunction with other methods.

So it's okay for the government to use race (among other factors) to identify suspects but not okay for government to use race (among other factors) for college admissions - which is what the Supreme Court ruled? A consistent position based on the 14th amendment would say that either the use of race in both circumstances under the given conditions is okay or not okay in either circumstance. The only difference I see is who loses and who wins with each.

[Skywalk]

Not at all.

One is about narrowing down an actual field of people to find a CRIMINAL, possibly a terrorist. If blonde haired people had to be profiled for a given crime, so be it.

One is an investigatory tool that is useless unless it is part of a broader methodology. It would be like trying to break up an Asian gang or an Irish gang by giving closer inspection to old black men. Such would be stupid, and for you to say otherwise shows the weakness in your analogy/comparison.

The other is about deserving applicants getting into an institution of higher learning. While overall background could and should be A factor, simple race is an absurdly reductionist and counterproductive method of viewing someone's background. What of the Asian who is the son of refugees from Cambodia? Should they not receive MORE consideration after struggling through their life than a black person from a basically middle class background?

In any event, they are NOT related at all.

[garbanzo]

One is an investigatory tool that is useless unless it is part of a broader methodology.

This is my point - using race alone is a dumb and illegal policy - but it is appropiate to use race in identifying potential suspects in the instances where it is narrowly tailored to a achieve a specific goal (e.g. finding a particular suspect ID'ed by witnesses). Such is the same for admissions - e.g. where there is a pattern of egregious and systematic discrimations - the no fill-in-the-blank need apply scenario where courts have been essentially forced to order AA programs because the people in charge won't obey the law.

While overall background could and should be A factor, simple race is an absurdly reductionist and counterproductive method of viewing someone's background.

Race is a part of a person's background - it seems absurd to consider everything else in a person's life except that. Again it shouldn't be the sole or even a dominant factor but I see no reason to ignore it completely.

What of the Asian who is the son of refugees from Cambodia? Should they not receive MORE consideration after struggling through their life than a black person from a basically middle class background?

People struggle in different ways - but taking your point at face value - it would depend on a lot of different factors, the current makeup of the applicant pool, normal grades, etc. There's no reason why both wouldn't be admitted all else being equal.

[djf]

Why in the world should they be considering every other part of a persons life? What does the fact that they may be a good volleyball player or did a lot of babysitting have to do with academics?

[garbanzo]

What does the fact that they may be a good volleyball player or did a lot of babysitting have to do with academics?

Because colleges are not just places of learning - they are communities. I can learn from a book - but to attend to a college is to become part of a community, which is why people have strong attachments to their alma maters. It's appropriate to consider a lot of different factors in determining who should be a part of your community, since you're not admitting a transcript, you're admitting a person.

[Smokin' Joe]

So a handful of white and asian kids will have to go their second choice public university.

Yeah, Let's teach those white and asian kids that no matter how hard they work it is really the color of their skin that is holding them down. (SARCASM OFF)

[Smokin' Joe]

...these people don't end up smoking crack and turning tricks for living after being rejected from a particular school.

Let's see....Harvard or crack smoking, Harvard or Crack smoking,...geez, that is a tough one.

If those are the decisions being made, why waste the classroom space?

If color/race/religion/etc. are not to be considered, then they shouldn't be, period.

[djf]

Bull. I dont buy it. If that's the case, then lets just do away with the books altogether, and focus on sports, drinking and sex.

[garbanzo]

I don't know if you went to college or not, but really most colleges foster a sense of community as well as learning. The two are not opposed to each other. Learning, as you probably are well aware, it's just from books or classes, but from interacting with people as well and it's is important to choose carefully the people you admit.