Posted on 09/26/2003 8:46:20 AM PDT by JeremyYoder
New Web Site Uses Civil Disobedience to Protest Affirmative Action
http://www.NoRace.org
On it, prospective college and grad school students can log on and sign an “action petition” stating that they will intentionally misreport their races on college admissions applications. The site will not reveal their names (we want them to get accepted), but will reveal how many applicants from each school have signed the petition. Signers are given an official letter of protest to present to any Dean of Admissions that gives them grief because of their skin color.
I thought you might be interested.
Hi back to you Javalina. I’m afraid that your unsupported statement regarding your admission to law school is just that. A GPA of 3.6, absent some other “help” may not be enough to get you into U of M Law. Remember, it’s an “elite” school. Did your “compelling personal story” include your ethnic identity? Did the law school that accepted you decide to make room for a deserving Latina? You may be under the impression that you did it on brains, spunk and guts. Unfortunately, as long as universities put their fingers on the scales of justice, favoring the favored ethnic categories, your accomplishments, no matter how well deserved, will always have an asterisk.
”Your "winning a race" argument is silly. Not only does it not apply to me, but it raises the question of who has a headstart. Should rich kids from suburban families feel ashamed that they got into schools because they had a headstart growing up? Nope. They got their on their merits. Should minority kids feel ashamed that they got into schools? Nope. They got their on their merits. Who started off with a headstart in the race is the real question.”
You and I will just have to disagree on my analogy. I am sure that you believe sincerely in your merits. There is also in your argument the suggestion that selection by race is justified because others have other – non-racial – advantages. I’m not sure what you mean by the assertion that rich, suburban kids have a head start growing up. Head start on what? It’s one of those throw-away lines that Liberals use that causes people to nod their heads, but is objectively meaningless. Some will and some won’t get into the schools of their choice on their merits. The issue is one of racial preferences. In the 1960s we began, as a nation, to make a pact that race is an illegitimate factor in discrimination between people. Now that the pendulum has swung, many influential white Liberals (who will not feel the effect of racial discrimination) have joined with race pimps to discriminate against middle and lower class whites and that compact has been broken. I’m afraid that it will take another generation and lots of goodwill on all sides to re-create those bonds of amity and tolerance. I see this in the younger generation; a generation is not traumatized by the civil rights movement of the ‘60s and ‘70s Who wonder why they should make way for people of a different skin color.
”You misunderstood my statement. Affirmative action does not just look to what race you check on the box. It looks to your personal statement where you explain how your particular story can contribute to diversity in the classroom (whether that be because of race, income, geographical region, job experience, etc..)”
I may have been born at night, but I was not born last night. I cite for you Justice Scalia’s comments regarding this case:
I add the following: The “educational benefit” that the University of Michigan seeks to achieve by racial discrimination consists, according to the Court, of “ ‘cross-racial understanding,’ ” ante, at 18, and “ ‘better prepar[ation of] students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society,’ ” ibid., all of which is necessary not only for work, but also for good “citizenship,” ante, at 19. This is not, of course, an “educational benefit” on which students will be graded on their Law School transcript (Works and Plays Well with Others: B+) or tested by the bar examiners (Q: Describe in 500 words or less your cross-racial understanding). For it is a lesson of life rather than law–essentially the same lesson taught to (or rather learned by, for it cannot be “taught” in the usual sense) people three feet shorter and twenty years younger than the full-grown adults at the University of Michigan Law School, in institutions ranging from Boy Scout troops to public-school kindergartens. If properly considered an “educational benefit” at all, it is surely not one that is either uniquely relevant to law school or uniquely “teachable” in a formal educational setting. And therefore: If it is appropriate for the University of Michigan Law School to use racial discrimination for the purpose of putting together a “critical mass” that will convey generic lessons in socialization and good citizenship, surely it is no less appropriate–indeed, particularly appropriate–for the civil service system of the State of Michigan to do so. There, also, those exposed to “critical masses” of certain races will presumably become better Americans, better Michiganders, better civil servants. And surely private employers cannot be criticized–indeed, should be praised–if they also “teach” good citizenship to their adult employees through a patriotic, all-American system of racial discrimination in hiring. The nonminority individuals who are deprived of a legal education, a civil service job, or any job at all by reason of their skin color will surely understand.
Unlike a clear constitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are impermissible, or even a clear anticonstitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are OK, today’s Grutter-Gratz split double header seems perversely designed to prolong the controversy and the litigation. Some future lawsuits will presumably focus on whether the discriminatory scheme in question contains enough evaluation of the applicant “as an individual,” ante, at 24, and sufficiently avoids “separate admissions tracks” ante, at 22, to fall under Grutter rather than Gratz. Some will focus on whether a university has gone beyond the bounds of a “ ‘good faith effort’ ” and has so zealously pursued its “critical mass” as to make it an unconstitutional de facto quota system, rather than merely “ ‘a permissible goal.’ ” Ante, at 23 (quoting Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U. S 421, 495 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). Other lawsuits may focus on whether, in the particular setting at issue, any educational benefits flow from racial diversity. (That issue was not contested in Grutter; and while the opinion accords “a degree of deference to a university’s academic decisions,” ante, at 16, “deference does not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review,” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003).) Still other suits may challenge the bona fides of the institution’s expressed commitment to the educational benefits of diversity that immunize the discriminatory scheme in Grutter. (Tempting targets, one would suppose, will be those universities that talk the talk of multiculturalism and racial diversity in the courts but walk the walk of tribalism and racial segregation on their campuses–through minority-only student organizations, separate minority housing opportunities, separate minority student centers, even separate minority-only graduation ceremonies.) And still other suits may claim that the institution’s racial preferences have gone below or above the mystical Grutter-approved “critical mass.” Finally, litigation can be expected on behalf of minority groups intentionally short changed in the institution’s composition of its generic minority “critical mass.” I do not look forward to any of these cases. The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception.</>
Not a relevant question. Once again, what race you are isn't the most important issue. You must be able to explain how your race (or any other factor) would contribute positively to the learning experience of the incoming class. “
For a definitive answer to your question, I refer you to Justice Scalia’s dissent.
”Not sure this is important to the practical application of affirmative action today. Seems more like an ad-hom than anything. “
On the contrary, it goes to the heart of the issue. Once any group of people who are out of power gain power that puts them in a position of advantage, it is very natural of them to wish to maintain their advantageous position. That is why it is the rare revolutionary that does not turn into a dictator when he gains power. That is one of the miracles of the American Revolution. It’s the primary reason why George Washington was such a unique historical figure.
”I have trouble comparing the modern-day anti-aff. action protestors to the freedom riders. The overall societal oppression does not come close to comparison. It's hyperbole.
Actually, I was comparing the supporters of affirmative action, and their desire to maintain - and justify – their position, to the racists of an earlier time.
”Besides, JeremyYoder's protest does little to throw a monkey-wrench into aff. action, as I've already explained. Unless, of course, these students are willing to lie about their racial status in their personal statements. But that's up to them. What box they check is pretty much unimportant.”
But that is precisely the point. If the admission office of a university cannot know if the racial classification that an applicant checks off if right, how can they come up with the right “critical mass” of black, Hispanic, Aleutian, etc. groups to make their little racist games work?
Love and peace.
Since I don’t want to get into personal discussions, I will stipulate that you may have gotten into a law school based on you GPA. That is not the issue. Even I, at my advanced age, could probably gain admission to a law or graduate school. You may be perfectly convinced – and cite your personal standings, grades, etc. as proof – that you got in on the merits. However, as long as there is an overt effort by institutions of all kinds to favor people of a certain gender, ethnic background or skin color there will always be doubt about this issue.
That is not my problem. It may not even be your problem, since you claim to have retired. But it is a problem for any minority who is now faced with doubters regarding his or her competence in view of affirmative action. When I had heart surgery, the surgeon that performed the operation was recommended based on his skill. Had someone mentioned that he had been an attended Med School because of an affirmative action program, I would have chosen another.
I go back to my primary point. We went through the turmoil of the civil rights marches, the sit-ins and teach-ins so that racial discrimination could be put behind us. Yet there is now a large constituency who wish to change the objective from a colorblind society to a perpetually racist society. A society where race is constantly a part of the calculus of who we are and where we have gotten. The kind of society so common in other parts of the world where skin color, ethnicity, family background or religion determines the future of people at birth.
For a brief moment, we reached an agreement. Unfortunately, that agreement has now been abrogated, not least of all by the majority of the Supreme Court who have decided that a little racial discrimination, for yet another generation, is acceptable. Having elevated racial diversity above racial equality, that elite majority has decided it can live with racism as long as it achieves racial togetherness. And if you can square that circle, you are a perfect candidate for the Supreme Court.
I can see that neither one of us is going to convince the other. What I pray is that racial grievances, once the exclusive province of minorities, will not find a much more powerful expression in a majority. We have unfortunate examples of that in other parts of the world. We don’t have far to look in that benighted continent of Africa. And to those who believe it can’t happen here … because we are “too civilized” … that is what was once said of the Germans.
Your suggestion that it is perfectly acceptable to use race as a method of discrimination because there are large numbers of other factors that are used to discriminate is simply faulty logic and unhistorical. The civil rights movement’s goal was nothing less than the elimination of race as an issue of discrimination – especially in governmental action and in public accommodation. It’s stated goals were not the perpetuation of discrimination in another form until all other discriminatory factors were eliminated. That would be absurd since there have always been and will always continue to be ways in which people discriminate.
Men will be attracted to beautiful women even if they eventually settle for someone other than a supermodel. If I offer someone a job, I will discriminate against the slothful, the stupid and the dishonest. My friends will be those who have similar interests and who I like to be with. A college will try to find a place for the offspring of a major donor, an alumnus or a staff member. It will be easier for a rich person to afford to attend college than a poor person. I could go on, but you seem to understand these issues.
HOWEVER, what the civil rights battle WAS about was the elimination of discrimination based on the pigment of one’s skin. Unlike other differences, it is not something that is either the fault of the individual and is not something that can be “overcome.”
Fair minded people joined together to decide that skin color was an illegitimate method of discrimination. That was until a segment of society – the beneficiaries of the new racism and Liberals who are largely unaffected by their own policies – decided that it was the turn of the formerly discriminated against to do a little discrimination of its own.
Regarding your comments on my age and its affect on my acceptance to a university, I would not wish to be part of an organization that wished to have me for that reason. As Groucho Marx once said “I would not want to join any club that wanted me for a member.”
Your references to M.L. King are a logical fallacy know an “appeal to authority.”
Last, I am not in the business of questioning the credentials of professionals I deal with. However, I do not wish to put my life in the hands of anyone who went to med school as an affirmative action poster child. That’s not my problem. There are plenty of other people to choose from. That becomes the problem of the black doctor who is trying to make a living. And it’s precisely for the reason you cite: there is no way of telling between the affirmative action black doctor and the superbly competent black doctor. His diploma does not say. You will have to check the death rate of his patients.
In fact there are several old threads on FR that discuss exactly that subject. You remember Bakke? Well the affirmative action doc was, for a while, the poster child for white Liberals. Until his patients started dying in large numbers. He finally lost his license.
Well, sorry, I’m not willing to die to prove you wrong.
By the way, while the services of a lawyer are not always as life-critical as the services of a doctor, their competence usually is of great monetary concern. Since their diplomas don’t specify how they got into law school, we can either check their track record … or simply avoid the issue by avoiding those who can readily be identified as possible affirmative action grads. You see; it IS their problem.
Good bye.
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.