|
Grex > Diversity > #12: Bush to join fight against UM's affirmative action program |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 232 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 106 of 232:
|
Jan 22 05:13 UTC 2003 |
I take it resp:105 refers to resp:102.
I've never had any contact with inner city kids. However, I've read
about inner city kids not getting an education, not attending classes,
not graduating, and about their parents not really caring or at least
not knowing what they could do. That was the basis of my comment.
These things aren't a problem?
Steve, I think you're both highly intelligent and highly thoughtful. I
also think your heart's in the right place. I very much enjoy reading
almost all of your comments. But in this case, it seems like you're
talking past me.
I perceive that affirmative action is not accomplishing much. There
are some good effects, and I've conceded those. There are also some
bad ones. I don't recall if you've conceded that, but others on your
side of the discussion have, and I'd hope we can agree to stipulate
that there are some bad effects. It all adds up, to me, in there not
being much improvement coming from affirmative action.
I don't know what to do about the problems of inner city high schools.
I wish I did. If I did, if I thought anyone did, I would be willing to
vote more tax money to address the problem. I might be willing to do
other things, too. Volunteer, for example, if I thought I could make a
difference.
I don't know how to correct the problems of racism, racial
discrimination, prejudice and inequity in society. I wish I knew how
to at least lessen these problems. If affirmative action for
admissions at U-M was really effective, I wouldn't be against it. I'm
not harmed by it personally. I don't think my kids will be borderline
U-M applicants who are likely to be affected. (One will probably make
it easily if he wants to, the other likely will not make it, unless he
makes it an important goal and works hard for it. I don't expect that
to happen.) I don't have anything to gain or lose.
I'm just trying to look at it from the perspective of fairness and
effectiveness. I think affirmative action is generally unfair, and I
think it doesn't work. In order for something unfair to be acceptable,
it's got to work in the way that's intended. The more unfair, the
better it's got to work. I don't think affirmative action makes the
cut.
I think having a competitive school like Michigan giving bonus
admissions points by race, specifically, is a bad idea. No, I don't
have another affirmative action plan to replace it. You've won that
point. Now, tell me why you support it, even though it doesn't work,
or supply some persuasion that shows it *does* work.
|
mdw
|
|
response 107 of 232:
|
Jan 22 06:44 UTC 2003 |
If I understand what klg is saying, he thinks the constitution
supersedes the SC and common law.
Interestingly, a google search on
constitution "common law"
finds a whole bunch of documents that claim the constitution was never
properly ratified and therefore isn't actually enforceable.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 108 of 232:
|
Jan 22 07:44 UTC 2003 |
Re #96" c'mon Steve, I never said that affirmative action applies "only to
minors". I was developing the thesis that it applies more naturally to
minors, because of the established law that makes minors, in a sense,
wards of their parents and the State.
Having spent most of my career in academia, I disagree strongly with
jep that it's positive effects are not very evident. They are VERY
evident when one looks at who it assisted in more detail. There is an
increased corp of well educated minorities in all disciplines who got
some boost from affirmative action. What you see as reduced discrimination
and more access of minorities to all walks of life is due to BOTH
laws (the stick) and affirmative action (the carrot).
What those that oppose affirmative action should do is work to further
eliminate discrimination againsty minorities. As that progresses, the
need for affirmative action will fade, and eventually they will attain
their objective of the elimination of affirmative action, because it will
no longer be needed.
As matters stand now, I always get the strong sense that those that
argue against affirmative action are actually trying to slow or cut
back the progress that has been made by minorities in our society. There
is a certain sense of rationality in the "inequality" argument against
affirmative action, which those that would prefer to discriminate find
useful as an argument.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 109 of 232:
|
Jan 22 10:03 UTC 2003 |
re #107: The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of its meaning
in our system, but the Constitution *does* supercede common law.
|
gull
|
|
response 110 of 232:
|
Jan 22 14:49 UTC 2003 |
Re #104: We now have far more minorities in positions of power and
influence than we did 20 years ago. I'm not sure we can come to the
conclusion that affirmative action isn't "working". Colin Powell has
been pretty frank in saying he benefited from it.
Re #106: Kids who learn things and don't get into trouble don't make
very good media copy, do they? The media gives a really skewed view of
what inner city life is like, I suspect.
There was a great political cartoon in the Free Press yesterday. It had
a series of students, labelled 'Soccer player', 'Son of graduate', 'Son
of major donor', 'Raised out of state', and 'Minority'. At the end was
a student, marked 'Didn't get in', pointing at the minority student and
saying 'It's his fault!'
|
jep
|
|
response 111 of 232:
|
Jan 22 18:49 UTC 2003 |
re resp:108: Any time anyone says they oppose any sort of program
regarding race, for any reason at all other than that they favor a
bigger and more expensive program, they're accused of being a racist.
If you're going to assume I am a racist, there's nothing whatsoever I
can do to counter your assumption, other than to fall into line and
agree with you. There's no need for you to look any further than that
in order to answer anything I say that you disagree with.
I think there are other reasons, not requiring bigotry, for disliking
affirmative action. If you are unable to perceive that someone can
have another position on this matter but still want to see reductions
in racism, there's nothing for you and I to discuss in this item.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 112 of 232:
|
Jan 22 18:57 UTC 2003 |
Are you suggesting that no one is motivated by racism in opposing affirmative
action?
The arguments against affirmative action, trying to assert that equality
demands its end, although we don't hear from the same people that equality
demands the end of discrimination, seem disingenuous. Those attacking
affirmative action do not put the same effort into seeking solutions to
the problem of discrimination.
|
slynne
|
|
response 113 of 232:
|
Jan 22 20:12 UTC 2003 |
I am a currently a student at EMU even though I could easily have
gotten into UofM. One nice thing I have noticed about EMU is that it
has a very diverse student body. I dont know if this is because of
affirmative action or what but having people from different backgrounds
participating in class discussions has improved the experience for me.
It is possible that UofM's decision to try to have a more diverse
student body isnt to make up for past discrimination or to make things
more fair but to provide a more enriching experience for everyone. That
they give points to children of alumni is all the evidence I need that
they arent really interested in making up for past discrimination.
I wish I lived in a society where diversity at a place like UofM would
just occur naturally but I dont. I'll bet there are a lot of people in
the admissions office at UofM who wish the same thing.
|
drew
|
|
response 114 of 232:
|
Jan 22 21:47 UTC 2003 |
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is impossible to discriminate
based on information that one does not possess. Deny the decision makers any
and all knowledge of what color any applicant is! Applicant race is properly
irrelevant to deciding who gets into the University; keep this information
scrupulously and painstakingly *OUT* of the input.
Same goes for deciding who gets hired by a company.
|
slynne
|
|
response 115 of 232:
|
Jan 22 22:11 UTC 2003 |
I hate to break it to you, drew, but it doesnt take a genius to figure
out a person's race during a job interview. Or are you seriuosly
suggesting that people should hire folks without interviews? That might
be fine for jobs where charisma isnt important but for other jobs it
would be a disaster.
|
jep
|
|
response 116 of 232:
|
Jan 22 22:28 UTC 2003 |
re resp:12: Rane, in resp:108 you said you *always* get the sense that
anyone who's against affirmative action is in favor of slowing or
reversing the progress that's been made. I think, from that, that you
mean it as an accusation of racism. *You're* suggesting that *every
person* opposing affirmative action is a racist. I'm suggesting maybe
some of us are not.
|
slynne
|
|
response 117 of 232:
|
Jan 22 22:46 UTC 2003 |
Sometimes people are racist (or sexist or classist or whatever) in
subtle ways that they dont really notice in themselves. I am sure this
is true about me. It might be true about you, John. Think hard about
why you think the legacy points are ok but points based on race are not.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 118 of 232:
|
Jan 22 23:36 UTC 2003 |
Before you all start dropping the "R" word on John, consider whether he
isn't just as entitled to argue that it applies to those who *support*
affirmative action..
|
tod
|
|
response 119 of 232:
|
Jan 22 23:52 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 120 of 232:
|
Jan 23 01:06 UTC 2003 |
I definitely do have some racist tendencies. Does this make me a
racist? Does it mean that any evaluation I make that has racial
implications is done because I want to repress minorities? Does it
make me unqualified to hold a position on subjects related to race, and
invalidate the arguments I make against affirmative action?
I'd say any American who claims not to have racist tendencies is lying
or delusional. I don't think I'm any more racist than most Grexers.
Also, I don't think it matters. I'm entitled to an opinion, and to
express it. Further, I'm not on trial here. Even if I were a member
of the KKK and openly proclaimed I hate all minorities -- which is not
the case -- it furthers no one's arguments to call me a racist.
I very much resent the veiled accusations that I am a racist. I don't
think I deserve that. I really don't.
|
gull
|
|
response 121 of 232:
|
Jan 23 01:18 UTC 2003 |
Re #120: Regardless of whether or not anyone thinks you're a racist (and
I don't think we have enough information to claim you are or aren't) I
*am* curious about your answer to the question posed in #117. Why is it
that legacy points are considered okay by pretty much everyone, but
affirmative action is strongly opposed by conservatives?
|
tod
|
|
response 122 of 232:
|
Jan 23 01:19 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 123 of 232:
|
Jan 23 01:49 UTC 2003 |
Re #116: that's right, "I always get the strong sense that those that
argue against affirmative action......etc". But that's how they come
across: I don't know nor did I assert that they are racist. I did not
suggest what you suggested I suggested (this sort of thing happens a
lot here - people jumping to unwarranted conclusions).
But read all the pronouncements from the anit-affirmative crowd: do you
get any sense that they have a *better* idea, or that they even recognize
that there is even a problem with prejudice and discrimination? No.
|
jep
|
|
response 124 of 232:
|
Jan 23 01:59 UTC 2003 |
re resp:121: I don't know, specifically, why legacy points are given by
the college. I don't have any strong feelings about that practice, one
way or the other.
It seems relevant to me that U-M gives 4 points for legacy status and
20 for race.
|
jep
|
|
response 125 of 232:
|
Jan 23 02:09 UTC 2003 |
re resp:123: Rane, when you strongly suggest, as you did, that someone
is a racist, people are going to notice. When you then deny you meant
any such thing, it makes you seem like you're being deceptive and
trying to hide from the direct implications of your comments.
If you don't want to stand behind what you said, then apologize and
correct what you said. Don't blame me for drawing the obvious
conclusion about what you *did* say.
I have strongly advocated, in this item, against the U-M's racially
unbalanced admissions policy. You have called me, solely because of my
position, a racist. I am offended.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 126 of 232:
|
Jan 23 02:18 UTC 2003 |
The "direct implications" of my comments are exactly what I say and no
more or less. Please read them again, and you will see that I did NOT
specifically accuse you or anyone else of racism. What the
anti-affirmative crowd does say, however, *conveys* racism, and I believe
that there are a lot of racists hiding behind their "equality" arguments.
If they don't want to come across as racists, they should be more careful
of their speech.
|
scg
|
|
response 127 of 232:
|
Jan 23 04:09 UTC 2003 |
jep asked yesterday why I support Affirmative Action...
For me, it's a basic issue of fairness. I'm still pretty young compared to
many of the people in this discussion, but I've done pretty well so far. I've
got a pretty big apartment in a nice safe neighborhood, a few miles away from
the neighborhoods where people who don't look like me have to worry about
being shot, or get told not to go outside because the local refinery just blew
up, again. I don't have a job that pays at the moment, but that's ok because
I can afford to go several months before it becomes an issue. I worked hard
to get this far, and I'll do a lot more hard work if I want to keep up this
lifestyle. But I had a lot of help getting here.
I grew up in nice neighborhoods where it was always safe to go out and
explore. I went to good schools, some just by virtue of the neighborhoods,
some by virtue of my parents' ability to pay, and one by virtue of my parents'
ability to wait in line. I always had prestigous universities nearby,
available to help with whatever I was interested in that wasn't being fully
covered in school. I had a house full of computers. I had well educated
parents who could help me with stuff I was studying and having trouble with,
and could teach me about lots of other stuff. I had lots of very well
connected friends and aquaintences. That didn't mean I did well in school.
I pursued the stuff I was interested in, ignored the rest, and ended up with
an impressive mix of As and Ds ("don't you ever do anything average?" I was
asked at one point) that wouldn't have gotten me into any college I would have
wanted to go to, but that was ok. Job offers for stuff that I was interested
in doing appeared without me even having to look for them, and the job I took
led to contacts that led to another job, which led to experience that led to
another job, and now here I am.
So, how did my family get from poor immigrant farmers and storekeepers to this
in a few generations? A lot of hard work, the classic "American Dream" of
upward mobility, and taking the opportunities that presented themselves.
So then we've got this other class of people, who were enslaved, tortured,
and not getting any of the benefits of their labor, while my ancestors were
working their way up. As slavery ended, segregation ensued, isolating those
people from the resources that tend to present the opportunities that my
ancestors and I were able to use so well to our advantage. As segregation
has in some ways gotten more absolute, going from black people and white
people not sharing the same drinking fountains to in many cases not sharing
the same cities, the gap between poor black people and the resources that tend
to make success just a matter of hard work has gotten more extreme as well.
When people do get out of that environment, even when they've been out of that
environment for generations, or even if they're recent immigrants whose
families were never in that environment, they still report being treated
differently, by white people who see black people and don't know what to say,
or worse wonder if they're about to get robbed. My step step grandmother
tells the story of how when she was working for the NAACP in New York in the
1940s, her friend Thurgood, already the most influential civil rights lawyer
in the US and a future US Supreme Court justice, defiantly refused to be
intimidated by the doorman in her apartment building, something her other
black friends didn't manage. Even now, even in a part of the US known for
its liberalism, a friend who had recently arrived in the US was complaining
a few years ago that of the several countries he had lived in, the US was the
only one where he'd ever felt like his race was an issue, and he wasn't
talking about being treated better here.
And as for the poor black kids who never get out of their neighborhoods, who
go to schools where getting shot is a bigger worry than failing a class,
schools without computers, or up to date text books, or frequent field trips
to major universities, or doors that will open to let them out if there's a
fire, and whose lucrative connections tend to be drug dealers and gang members
rather then professors and computer geeks, many of them don't even get the
chance to be treated as suspects in the neighborhoods where real opportunities
are.
So, I'm not sure if this makes any sense to anybody but me, but this is why
I support Affirmative Action. To reward people who have had to struggle a
lot harder than I have for their hard work, to provide people who wouldn't
otherwise have access to them the kinds of connections and opportunities I
had, to hopefully boost the number of well off black people who are members
of integrated communities to the point where black people in privlidged
neighborhoods are no longer automatically treated as suspects, and to expose
people from more privileged backgrounds to people and stories they would
otherwise be unaware of. I support Affirmative Action with some reservations,
however, because I worry that it's too little, too late. I would be much
happier to see this integration happen long before we get to the point of
college admissions, but that doesn't seem to be the direction the US is going
at the moment.
|
jep
|
|
response 128 of 232:
|
Jan 23 04:33 UTC 2003 |
re resp:126: You're still accusing me of racism, but lightly veiling
it. It's called being "mealy mouthed".
I think you'd better consider what you mean to convey by your comments,
and if they're not conveying what you mean, write more carefully. The
implications of something you say aren't what you later decide to say
they are, they're what others will infer when they read them. If you
say that my arguments imply racism, you're accusing me of racism.
|
jep
|
|
response 129 of 232:
|
Jan 23 05:02 UTC 2003 |
re resp:127: At various points in American history, Italians, Germans,
Chinese, Irish and many other ethnic groups have been singled out as
being inferior in various ways, and denied the capability to compete on
equal terms with other Americans. They almost all overcame it, and did
so without affirmative action. Some were pretty easily distinguishable
from "white" Americans. Irish weren't considered white. Hispanics
aren't now, though I cannot figure out why. Aren't they as Caucasian
as I am? Not that anyone should care, other than census bureau folks
who want to figure out how much affirmative action to give them.
The handiest example of another group which was separated from the rest
of society and given "advantages" that mostly weren't advantages at
all, is the American Indians and the reservation system. Those who
stay on the reservations live a lot differently than other Americans.
They don't have much money, or much chance of getting any. They have
very high unemployment, alcoholism, drug usage, rates of child and
spousal abuse, and crime, and low life expectancies that remind one of
Third World countries.
I think the nation's minorities, including African Americans, would be
better off if treated like the minorities which came before them who
became "just plain Americans", than they will be if we continue to
treat them as a separate class of people.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 130 of 232:
|
Jan 23 05:31 UTC 2003 |
I think you make too little of the effect of being visibly black in a nation
that has a large percentage of active or venal racists. All of the other
nationalities/ethnicities except perhaps some hispanics blend into the
general range of "white". Most hispanics can too. Some blacks of diluted
genomes can also. But that leaves a large number of people that can
be categorized simply by color. THAT is what the nation has not surmounted.
I thought Steve's explanation of his position was very eloguent. How many
hear can say the same thing. How many here WILL say the same thing. I, for
one, had similar advantages as Steve and did not suffer the disadvantages
of being black. Anything we can do to overcome to current division is still
worth considering.
|