Are opponents of affirmative action really widely portrayed as racists?

[VarlosZ]

justinh:

my daughter wants to go to UCLA (for some reason). I told her she couldn’t get in because of the color of her skin. the policy sounds pretty racist to me

Then you got bad information.

UCLA has quotas on how many whites they can admit.

As of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), racial quotas in state-sponsored institutions have been considered unconstitutional (a breach of the equal protection clause in the fourteenth amendment). The court ruled that race may be taken into account when considering various applicants, but that no quotas may be set.

Furthermore, if memory serves, there was a referendum passed a few years ago in California effectively banning state-sponsored Affirmative Action (i.e. the consideration of race) in California (Ah, I see from Kimstu**'s post that is was Prop. 209). When you get a chance, you may want to tell your daughter that you were mistaken.

Crafter Man:

It is a fact that Republicans are held to a higher standard by everyone. . .

I think that you’re throwing the word “fact” around a little loosely. This is most definately your own opinion. Furthermore, I can’t even imagine the kind of documentation, evidence, and research needed to support this with anything other than anecdotes.

If you’re a Democrat, you can be a liar, cheater, womanizer, communist, thief, etc. There is virtually no character flaw a Democrat could have that would raise an eyebrow with anyone. . .

Yes, President Clinton received no scrutiny or condemnation at all for having an affair with an intern and saying otherwise in court. Unless, that is, you count the months of non-stop news coverage, the special prosecutor, the impeachment proceedings, the trial, or the lawsuits. Or one could, I suppose, consider the case of Gary Hart (sp?), chased out of the presidential campaign for having an affair. But, then, why would you want to consider evidence that contradicts your theory?

It may or may not be true that Republicans are more heavily scrutinized than Democrats – I really don’t know – but the above is, at best, a ridiculous overstatement.
On preview, I see rjung has touched upon the same ground. I think the two posts (his and mine) compliment each other nicely.

throatshot:

It’s my understanding that some forms of affirmative action include lower requirements for certain minority groups on some tests/admission standards. I’m very opposed to this. It’s insulting to the people it’s supposed to help.

This is really off-topic, but I would like to point out that race is not the only non-educational criteria used to evaluate applicants. Universities strive for geographical diversity; hence, all other things being equal, a student from Oklahoma has a better chance of getting into NYU than does a Manhattanite. Is this “insulting” to the Oklahoma native? Of course not, it merely represents the university’s desire for a diverse – in more ways than one – student body.

Similarly, universities give preferential treatment to applicants with a legacy at the school – you’re more likely to get into School X if your father went there. Finally, universities give special consideration to students who come from unusually rich families that don’t mind “donating” huge sums of money to the school. I am puzzled by the fact that only race is attacked as an unjust consideration for enrollment (especially since, unlike the other considerations I mentioned, a racially diverse campus yields benefits to more than just the university in question or the direct beneficiaries of this special consideration).

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
Hmmm, I think we really need a cite for that. There have been plenty of high-ranking Republicans (Newt Gingrich and John Tower are two that I can think of off the top of my head) who have been guilty of various ethics violations, or even indicted on criminal charges. If there is indeed some kind of “moral or ethical standard” for being a Republican, it looks like the bar is set pretty low.

If you think that that disproves Crafter_Man’s assertion, then you clearly don’t understand what he’s saying. He’s saying that people do make a big deal over Republican indiscretions because they expect better from them.

By the way, the chief reason for calling Prop. 209 (the legislation banning any governmental affirmative action policies in California) “racist” was that it explicitly singles out race (and gender) as a category in which any type of preference policies are forbidden.

Racism is discrimination against people, not against categories. Categories don’t have rights, people do.

“(Proposition 209) deprives the proponents of affirmative action – and only the proponents of affirmative action – of the ordinary benefits of representative government.”

That’s blatently false. Proponents of Jim Crow laws are also denied the “ordinary benefits of representative government”, if one can call using the government to get special benefits for your group “ordinary benefits”.

“Advocates for racial preferences, in contrast, may no longer appeal to a city council or Board of Regents, or even to the state legislature.”

The state legislature is not able to overrule a proposition? Could I have a cite?

they explicitly targeted race as a category (unlike most other demographic categories) where preferential policies could not even be considered, in any way or for any reason.

No, preferental policies can still be implemented; however, policies may not be designed with the purpose of creating a preference.

To the extent that, as Judge Norris claimed, this denies to racial minorities some benefits of representative government that aren’t denied to other minority groups, it might be considered racist.

There is no benefit denied to members of a racial minority that is not denied to the rest of society.

DMC

I would guess that almost all (I haven’t found an exception, but I’m sure there is one) racists are against affirmative action

Wouldn’t Al Sharpton be such a counter example?

[VarlosZ]

I’ll let Kimstu reply in detail, but I feel compelled to at least mention the following.

quote:

“(Proposition 209) deprives the proponents of affirmative action – and only the proponents of affirmative action – of the ordinary benefits of representative government.”

That’s blatently false. Proponents of Jim Crow laws are also denied the “ordinary benefits of representative government”, if one can call using the government to get special benefits for your group “ordinary benefits”.

This may be true in an alternate universe in which (a) there are poeple who actually lobby for Jim Crow laws in California and (b) existing state and federal regulation wouldn’t already invalidate any attempt to form such laws. On this planet, however, you’re incorrect.

There is no benefit denied to members of a racial minority that is not denied to the rest of society.

You obviously read the relevant portion of Kimstu’s post, so I have no idea how you missed this. For clarification’s sake, I’ll repost:

The AARP can go to a city council tomorrow and request special incentives to attract older Americans to the municipal workforce; the Veterans of Foreign Wars can lobby the state legislature for special employment or housing incentives on behalf of veterans; Marian Wright Edelman can lobby for preferential health benefits for children at all levels of state and local government.

Are senior citizens, veterans, and children not part of society? Do they not have the benefit of being able to ask for (and receive) preferential treatment from government? Finally, are not members of racial minorities (in California) denied this benefit that other elements of society enjoy?
– Hmm, sorry if the tone of this post is a little inconsiderate. I’ve been unuaually sarcastic all day.

[DMC]

Originally posted by The Ryan
Wouldn’t Al Sharpton be such a counter example?

If Al Sharpton is a racist, then that would be a counter-example, which I acknowledged likely existed. While I’m certainly not a fan of Sharpton myself, I don’t think he’s quite as easily categorized as many people would like him to be. His use of the term “white interloper” also doesn’t rank very high on my list of racist insults.

Did the thread have to be hijacked just to get a jab in at Al?

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by december *
I’m thinking about Senator Robert Byrd who stupidly used the n-word on TV several months ago. (the phrase he used was “white n*****s”) He could have been demonized, particularly since he was a KKK member many, many years ago. However, nobody called him a “racist,” probably because he’s an AA supporter and a Democrat. I think a Republican or an opponent of AA would have been blasted for that comment.

Change the italicized sentence to “I think a Republican who is an opponent of AA would have been blasted for that comment.”, and I will agree. (If you simply eliminate the words “Republican or”, and I would also agree.) Why? Very simple (and having little to do with political affiliation):

Someone who goofs and makes a derogatory statement about a group will be much more likely to be forgiven if he/she has demonstrated that the derogatory statement does not reflect his/her true views. In Byrd’s case, his record demonstrates that he has renounced his former racist views. Jesse Helms, OTOH, was using racial attacks in his political campaigns as late as the 90’s, and would be demonized for saying “nigger”, and rightly so.

Turn it around - if Phil Gramm made some cracks about “rednecks”, it would be shrugged off pretty quickly - because his record in Texas demonstrates that he doesn’t have a prejudice against rural types. Were Hilary to make the same comments, she would be shredded, and rightly so - she has no record that indicates she thinks favorably of such people.

Crafter Man, your comment is utterly stupid. Last I checked, Republicans are still beating Democrats in Presidential ethics scandals this century 3-1. (Teapot Dome, Iran-Contra and Watergate v. Monicagate/White Water). If you look only at scandals involving abuse of the power and authority of the office of President, Republicans beat Democrats 3-0 (Whitewater, if the Clintons did anything untoward, occurred before Bill became President, and Monicagate concerning extramarital sex and perjury).
If Republicans are held to a higher ethical standard, which is at the least unproven and is more likely simply wrong, perhaps it is because you people have shown you can’t be trusted. 33% of Republican Presidents in the 20th Century abused the power of their office. Damn, that’s a good enough batting average to get into the Hall of Fame.

Sua

[jshore]

Boy, I guess it is kind of stupid to start a thread when one doesn’t have time to respond (or even read much of it)!

But, hey, carry on everyone!

[justinh]

varlosz,
I will investigate the UCLA quota thing. I was told that was the case as soon as 10 years ago.

I don’t know about the resolution that prohibited quotas after 1978 but I know they were in place. can anyone confirm this? as a matter of fact the percentages were published (don’t remember where). help me out some body. maybe I was having a acid trip.

[december]

Originally posted by Kimstu Hmmm, I think we really need a cite for that [Republicans are held to a higher standard]. There have been plenty of high-ranking Republicans (Newt Gingrich and John Tower are two that I can think of off the top of my head) who have been guilty of various ethics violations, or even indicted on criminal charges. If there is indeed some kind of “moral or ethical standard” for being a Republican, it looks like the bar is set pretty low.

Kimstu, funny, but these are two prime examples of what Crafter_Man was complaining about. In fact, the unfair demonization of NG and JT was so effective that you’re still under its spell. (BTW my liberal daughter is looking over my shoulder and laughing out loud at the idea of defending Newt. I don’t get no respect…)

Kimstu, you’re an ACLU supporter, but you wrote, “or even indicted on criminal charges.” Indicted? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? These two demonization victims were never convicted of anything. How about acquitted?

I can’t remember any specific ethical or legal charges against Tower. I do recall an allegation that he drank too much.

In Newt’s case, he was accused of income tax violations through a coordinated Democratic publicity campaign. In the wake of this demonization, the House applied a big fine, before the IRS had investigated the accusations. When the IRS finally did their investigation, they found that Newt had done nothing wrong. There was no criminal charge and IIRC not even any additional tax. The whole thing was trumped up.

The case involved some non-profit educational institution, which included a certain degree of political content. Of course, every college in America includes political content. But, Newt’s institution was different: the political content was conservative :eek:

sua wrote Change the italicized sentence to “I think a Republican who is an opponent of AA would have been blasted for that comment.”, and I will agree. (If you simply eliminate the words “Republican or”, and I would also agree.) Why? Very simple (and having little to do with political affiliation):

Someone who goofs and makes a derogatory statement about a group will be much more likely to be forgiven if he/she has demonstrated that the derogatory statement does not reflect his/her true views.

Sua, I take your point, but there’s a bit of circularity in it. It depends on what one thinks of AA. IMHO affirmative action is bad for Blacks. So, it’s the supporters of AA who have more to prove in my book.

Actually, the situation can be better understood operationally. Charges of racism are a specific tactic used politically by a certain groups. In particular, this is a tactic of those who favor AA. They use this weapon against those on the other side. It’s an effective means of getting their desired program enacted. Nobody wants to be called a “racist,” especially a politician.

[VarlosZ]

december:

In Newt’s case, he was accused of income tax violations through a coordinated Democratic publicity campaign. In the wake of this demonization, the House applied a big fine, before the IRS had investigated the accusations. When the IRS finally did their investigation, they found that Newt had done nothing wrong. There was no criminal charge and IIRC not even any additional tax. The whole thing was trumped up.

(Politely) I’ve never run across this. Cite?

[Erasticity]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by VarlosZ *
**I’ll let Kimstu reply in detail, but I feel compelled to at least mention the following.

quote:

“(Proposition 209) deprives the proponents of affirmative action – and only the proponents of affirmative action – of the ordinary benefits of representative government.”
Are senior citizens, veterans, and children not part of society? Do they not have the benefit of being able to ask for (and receive) preferential treatment from government? Finally, are not members of racial minorities (in California) denied this benefit that other elements of society enjoy?
– **

So age (elderly and children) only affects certain ethnic groups? Veterans? Oh yeah! they must be ethnically affiliated too! I get it! they were only talking about the WHITE veterans, senior citizens and children. I think if we used the word ‘Race’ to mean something that is run (preferably for a short distance only) our lives would be much less stressful.

[december]

*Originally posted by VarlosZ *
**december:

In Newt’s case, he was accused of income tax violations through a coordinated Democratic publicity campaign. In the wake of this demonization, the House applied a big fine, before the IRS had investigated the accusations. When the IRS finally did their investigation, they found that Newt had done nothing wrong. There was no criminal charge and IIRC not even any additional tax. The whole thing was trumped up.

(Politely) I’ve never run across this. Cite? **

Here’s one that has some information: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-arch/1999/Z1999-Feb-24/http://www.newaus.com.au/us6a.html

[VarlosZ]

So age (elderly and children) only affects certain ethnic groups? [etc.]

I thought this was implicit in my post, but I’ll state it more clearly:

Are senior citizens, veterans, and children not part of society? Do they not have the benefit of being able to ask for (and receive) preferential treatment qua being senior citizens, veterans, or children from government? Finally, are not members of racial minorities qua being minorities (in California) denied this benefit that other elements of society enjoy?

I think if we used the word ‘Race’ to mean something that is run (preferably for a short distance only) our lives would be much less stressful.

I agree, but I don’t think that legislation specifically designed to take certain rights and benefits away from only one category of citizens (and not for any reason related to the specific needs and circumstances of said category) is the best way to start.

[VarlosZ]

Thank you very much, december. I’ll look into it.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by VarlosZ *
That’s blatently false. Proponents of Jim Crow laws are also denied the “ordinary benefits of representative government”, if one can call using the government to get special benefits for your group “ordinary benefits”.

This may be true in an alternate universe in which (a) there are poeple who actually lobby for Jim Crow laws in California and (b) existing state and federal regulation wouldn’t already invalidate any attempt to form such laws. On this planet, however, you’re incorrect.

Look, proposition 209 outlaws discrimination against race. Therefore it denies proponents of Jim Crow laws the ability to pass those laws. It’s really that simple. “Well, they wouldn’t be able to do it anyway” doesn’t change that. Would it be okay if there were a law saying that black people can’t be president, because “it’s not like that’s going to happen anyway”?

You obviously read the relevant portion of Kimstu’s post, so I have no idea how you missed this.

Because it wasn’t there. What, exactly, is this benefit that you think exists?

Are senior citizens, veterans, and children not part of society? Do they not have the benefit of being able to ask for (and receive) preferential treatment from government?

Yes, and yes.

Finally, are not members of racial minorities (in California) denied this benefit that other elements of society enjoy?

No. Racial minorites are allowed to ask for preferential treatment for senior citizens, veterans, and children. Senior citizens, veterans, and children are not allowed to ask for preferential treatment on the basis of race. Neither group has a benefit the other doesn’t.

Do they not have the benefit of being able to ask for (and receive) preferential treatment qua being senior citizens, veterans, or children from government? Finally, are not members of racial minorities qua being minorities (in California) denied this benefit that other elements of society enjoy?

Those are two different benefits. All you’ve shown is that some people have benefit A, and others don’t have benefit B. That’s not discrimination. White people are allowed to drive cars with white headlights. Black people aren’t allowed to drive cars with black headlights. Is that discrimination? You can play word games all you want, but that won’t prove your point.

I agree, but I don’t think that legislation specifically designed to take certain rights and benefits away from only one category of citizens (and not for any reason related to the specific needs and circumstances of said category) is the best way to start.

If we’re going to try to discuss this, we need to figure out what the words we are using mean. Earlier, Kimstu referred to race as a category. If that is what is meant by a category, then no rights or benefits can be taken away from any category, because only people have rights, not things. I’ve said this before, but it doesn’t seem to be sinking in. If anyone can explain to me how “race” can hold rights or benefits, I’d really like to hear it. “Race” is a thing, not a person or a set of people. It therefore can not hold rights.

DMC:

Did the thread have to be hijacked just to get a jab in at Al?

How is this either a hijack or a jab?

[Erasticity]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by VarlosZ *
**

I thought this was implicit in my post, but I’ll state it more clearly:

Are senior citizens, veterans, and children not part of society? Do they not have the benefit of being able to ask for (and receive) preferential treatment qua being senior citizens, veterans, or children from government? Finally, are not members of racial minorities qua being minorities (in California) denied this benefit that other elements of society enjoy?

**

I guess I just don’t understand… are they denying Black, Hispanic, Chinese, Jovian,… etc. Senior citizens, children and veterans benefits that are otherwise enjoyed by Caucasian Senior citizens, children and veterans? If your answer is “NO” then you must mean that Senior citizens, children, veterans, AND Black, Hispanic, Chinese, Jovians,… etc deserve equal treatment whilst the caucasian Non-elderly, youngerly and Veteran populace should recieve a penalized quality of life. is That it? If we start by viewing it as the HUMAN race, then all these silly little quotas, percentages and bennies for people with extra melanin in the subdermal layer of skin, extra skin around the upper eyelids, and the like a little silly.

HEY! Wait a minute! I’ve got six toes! I’m a Minority! Give me a job that I’m not really qualified for and a law that say until a better qualified Pedis Excessis comes along. I think I’ll go write my congresswoman…

[Erasticity]

*Originally posted by VarlosZ … but I don’t think that legislation specifically designed to take certain rights and benefits away from only one category of citizens (and not for any reason related to the specific needs and circumstances of said category) is the best way to start. **

And just exactly WHAT specific ‘needs and circumstances’ do “minority” non- Elderly, children, Veterans have?

[DMC]

The Ryan,

Insinuating that Al Sharpton is a racist (which is debatable, and hence seemed like a hijack attempt) is a jab.

[iamthewalrus_3]

My best friend (who is, for the record, an upper-middle class white male) goes to UCLA, and we had a conversation about the Affirmative Action policies there. It seems that they recently added/changed their policies to include something like this <paraphrasing> UCLA will not consider race in any way when making admission decisions.</paraphrasing>

At the time, he said there were massive protests, and his roommates (of asian descent) asked him to participate. He was outraged. Why should they consider race as a factor?!

Note, however, that this does not mean that they can’t make other special arrangements for racial minorities. They can offer disproportionate financial aid packages, actively advertize the college to racial minorities more (which was the original meaning and intent of AA), and have special programs for them…

I know that Harvey Mudd College, as a Science and Engineering School, tends to be female-deficient.As a result, we make quite an effort to attract more women to the college.

Somehow, I don’t have a problem with that

They even have an all-expenses paid several week program for minorities/women that lets them get a jump-start on their first year. They fly them in too.

[Erasticity]

Give me a job that I’m not really qualified for and a law that say until a better qualified Pedis Excessis (six toed guy;-)) comes along I keep this job. I think I’ll go write my congresswoman… **
[/QUOTE]

thats what it wuz s’posed t’ read. It was 10:00 AM after a 12 hr. night shift… sorry.-(

[Crafter_Man]

I’d like to clarify my previous post.

I’m not saying Republicans are necessarily more moral or ethical than Democrats, but that Republicans are held to a higher standard. By who? Democrats. Republicans. The media. Everyone. Indiscretions by Republicans tend to bring instant outcries of condemnation and demands for resignation, while indiscretions by Democrats tend to be met with silence, primarily by the media. I’m not saying this happens every time, but I believe there’s a definite correlation.