I agree and I agree it does not seem fair. On the other hand, which party is more likely to run on positions and platforms that stress personal morality–as defined by the Religious Right?
The objections to the Democrats by the “Moral Majority,” as far back as Reagan’s ascendancy, were that the Democrats were tolerating, even fostering, “anti-family” values.
Now if we “all know” that the Democrats are “anti-family” and that they probably have a history of lewd orgies while we “all know” that the Republicans are God-fearing family men who have been straight arrows from before their first chastely kiss, then who is going to take more heat when any given individual is found in an immoral or unethical position?
I don’t think it’s fair, but I suspect that Republicans are victims of 25 years of their own publicity.
I don’t see why opposing affirmative action would be racist, after all many of the stongest proponents seem to be whites - not “people of color”.
In fact affirmative action probably benifits white women, and middle to upper class minorities than it benefits the intended beneficiaries - the minority “underclass”.
I’m all for programs that benefit inner city youth, or people from Indian reservations, and other truly disadvantaged groups. But just because someone is a _______ as opposed to a _________ just doesn’t cut it.
Maybe I am being to subjective because of my own experience. I am Portuguese and German-Brazilian (think Giselle Bunchen or Gustavo Kuerten). Therefore I
am white in appearance. But if my parents had the forsight to have been born in Asuncion instead of Belo Horizonte - I’d be a “Hispanic”. Actually I am technically a “Latino” but not a Hispanic - so it depends on who’s doing the surveying. This race stuff sure is scientific isn’t it?
This brings me to a question. Are “international students” part of affirmative action? And would Turks and Siberian-Russians be considered “Asian”, Spaniards and Argentines “Hispanic”, or Greek-Egyptians and Afrikaners “African-American”…even if they are biologically “white” (and I know “biologically” is not a good word - but I can’t think of another way to put it). American terms for race are absolutely useless for most other cultures.
How is it a hijack to mention something that is debatable? I thought this was the forum for debatable statements. Furthermore, offering a counterexample to a proposition is not what I consider a “jab”. I did not mention this as a personal attack on Sharpton; I mentioned it as a contravening piece of evidence.
I stated that there were exceptions, but couldn’t name one, so you named one that you thought fit the bill. While we may disagree on whether that’s the case, it’s still a valid response, so I’ll retract my statements regarding the hijack.
I still stand by my opinion that the vast majority of racists are against AA, which doesn’t imply that everyone against AA is a racist.
rjung, there’s another way of looking at your examples.
Bill Clinton admitted to using marijuana, and so did Gore. OTOH during the campaign there was no evidence that W had ever used cocaine. There’s still no evidence.
Nevertheless, W was given far more grief over drugs in the mainstream press and the late night comics than Gore or Clinton.
Bill Clinton never served in anything, and he was shown to have fibbed in a letter in which he got a deferrement. W did serve in the reseves, which meant he had the potential to be called up into battle. (Note that a bunch of reserveists were just called up since Sept. 11) W was a jet pilot – risky work even in training. In this case nobody took the accusation of AWOL seriously except some lefty nut cases, and Bush wasn’t hurt by the accusations.
There are no quotas that limit the admission of students of certain races to UCLA: Current UCLA Admissions Policy. Please notice that race does not appear among the criteria listed.
As an alumnus of UCLA, I’m surprised that anyone would have thought there were.
In this link, you can see that in the UCs as a whole, Euro-Americans in 1995 represented the largest single group enrolled as undergraduates. In addition, Chart 4 shows that this was also true in 1991, ten years ago.
Informing someone that they couldn’t attend UCLA because they were white was a mistake. I know some people were afraid they couldn’t get into UCLA because of their minority ethnicity, but to fear the reverse seems baseless.
I think many people have overreacted to the whole notion of Affirmative Action as racism against white people, but I would like to see where there is evidence that there is a widespread program of discrimination against white people in the form of whites suffering underrepresentation in positions of power, education, and wealth in this country. If anything, I expect examination of the figures will show that the reverse is true.
Wevets, the problem with the data you’re asking for is that it doesn’t represent the position that opponents of affirmative action are taking, if I understand them at all correctly. I suspect they’d admit that white males are overrepresented in positions of power, education, and wealth in comparison to the population as a whole, but what they complain about is that affirmative action in the form of making “race” or gender a criterion is explicitly discrimination against those who have the wrong skin color or sex.
If there were data about admissions or hirings as a function of race with all other things being equal (and presumably scaled to the number of applicants from each category), opponents of affirmative action would argue that THESE numbers would be the ones that would reveal discrimination. To be honest, I don’t know that I expect to see that, either, but that’s what they’re complaining about.
International students are not part of affirmative action. In fact it is often harder for international students to get admission to American universities, because some universities have quotas and most (I think MIT is an exception) do not extend their need-blind policy to international students. Those who ask for financial aid find it much harder to get admission. (I’m not saying that this is wrong, though.)
I would agree that American racial categories have no meaning outside of America. But I guess if you consider that affirmative action can be motivated by the commendable desire to diversify (which had not occurred to me before it was pointed out in this thread), then this would be one way to do it. I believe that affirmative action has another goal, though, which is to help under-privileged students get a higher education, and in this case I’m not sure that race is the perfect way to decide to whom it should apply…
The strange logic mentioned by Kimstu (she did not clearly state that she agrees with it) has been amply disposed of by The Ryan and others. But I would add that acording to that way of thinking, laws that prohibit racial discrimination are themselves “racist”, as long as other forms of discrimination remain legal. So that a white veteran employer can discriminate in favor of his fellow veterans in hiring but cannot discriminate in favor of his fellow whites etc.
Your point is well taken and is probably a major reason for phenomenon, to the extent that it exists. (Also, the constituency that the Republicans represent cares more about such things). But I would point out that the Republicans do not run campaigns calling for people to vote for them because they personally have more “family values”. Rather, because their policies promote “family values”. Which can be true in spite of the indiviudal failings of specific politicians.
It’s just a normal part of politics to hint at disreputable motives in your opponents. A few opponents of any affirmative action programme are bound to be racists, so a few proponents hint that all are fellow travellers. Their comments are used in turn as a way to portray proponents as being demonizers of principled opponents. You can see the same process at work in the Pit right now. It’s always easy to believe one’s opponents are mistaken and/ or insincere.
What’s unfair about holding individuals to the standards they themselves hold others to? That’s simply rooting out and exposing hypocrisy, and there is nothing at all “unfair” about that. Unfairness involves being held to different standards than others when the standards are imposed externally, but it is most certainly not unfair when the people proclaiming the standards don’t meet them themselves. That is especially not true when they themselves don’t meet the standards as well as the individuals from other parts of the political spectrum that they so piously condemn.
Just for instance: What’s unfair about Politician A being continuously humiliated publicly, and nearly driven out of office against the wishes of the electorate, for a few days’ dalliances, while Politician B, who’s a key part of that campaign, can dismiss his own 7-year affair, including the destruction of the woman’s marriage, as a “youthful indiscretion”? Darn right there’s some unfairness there - oh wait, you think it’s unfair to Politician B? For heaven’s sake, why?
Several persons on this thread have complained about an systemic unfairness to the party of moralizing preachers, but have not presented any facts that hold up to inspection, or indeed many examples. Those of you who have done so are requested to if you wish to be taken seriously.
The claim IzzyR and tomndebb have implicitly advanced, that those who do not share the beliefs hypocritically professed by the Right must therefore not have any beliefs of their own, is willfully ignorant to the point of contemptibility.
The claim that ElvisL1ves has explicitly advanced, that I (and tomndebb IMO) have implied anything connected to the above, is willfully ignorant to the point of contemptibility.
I’d rather see a program that allows college staff to go into inner cities and your poorer schools and try and start enrichment programs and college prep courses for everyone-try to get kids when they’re young.
I would be truly interested to see you create a syllogism (or any other logical device) to show how your inference can, in any way, be laid to any implication of mine.
I made an observation regarding the social dynamics that have led to the perception of higher or lower standards for each of the political parties. Given my rather frequently expressed delight when I have found Republicans hoist by their own sanctimonious petards, (to say nothing of having the dreaded “L” word hurled at me by such heavyweight posters as John John and Mark Serlin), I find it amusing to be accused of implying that the Democrats have no standards or beliefs. I’m quite willing to bash Democrats, also, whom I find being hypocrites, but I was not, in this instance, making a comment on anyone’s values, merely their campaign rhetoric.
That’s what I feel too, Guinastasia… most of the black/Hispanic people whom I knew at university were from rich families and I couldn’t help but feel that affirmative action was not really helping those who need it most. There are probably many bright children who never even send in the application form.
Sure there is,december, but you keep sticking your figers in your ears and singing so loud that you can’t hear it. At the very least, Bush’s repeated dodging of the issue during his campaign was a major embarassment – the guy refused to give a straightforward answer to the question, while simultaneously criticizing Clinton’s character as evasive.
“Bush’s answer yesterday fell short of the standard required of senior government officials both in the Bush administration and in the Clinton administration, who must reveal drug use back to age 18… Republicans, even those friendly toward the governor’s candidacy, doubted that yesterday’s limited response would quell the controversy. ‘I think it’s going to lead to more and more questions,’ one strategist said. Now the question is what happened between ages 18 and 28. I don’t think those questions will stop until there is an answer.’”
–Washington Post, 8/20/1999
If he’s not gonna give a straight answer, then he deserves it.
Not likely, since he got Dad to pull some strings and slip him into the Texas Air Guard ahead of other candidates, just to avoid going to Vietnam. And then he gets a special commission as a Second Lieutenant, even without attending officer school and being unqualified for the role. And then there’s the theory that he went AWOL to skip the now-mandatory drug tests…
Given that the Republicans are supposed to be the party of moral character, I would have expected there to be some concern that Dubya didn’t fulfil his sworn duty to serve. But then, I’m not a Republican, so I guess my moral standards are a bit higher than theirs.
Not so fast, amigo (and IzzyR, this goes for you, too). I have a pretty good ear for irony, and if you intended it that way, it certainly didn’t come across that way.
By referring to the Republicans as the party of “family values”, that is a pretty strong implication that the Democrats are the party not of “family values”. The right-wing rhetoric has no plausible interpretation I can think of that implies that Democrats have values of their own, much less any that fall under the category of reasonable people reasonably disagreeing. Indeed, the observation is often made directly, not implied.
tomndebb, you observed in essence (perhaps ironically, I’ll admit) that Republicans are unfairly held to higher standards simply because they have standards. If you’d like to claim that their claim to represent moral superiority is only campaign rhetoric, not to be taken seriously, not an actual expression of belief, well, it would help to have stated that more clearly, and I would then agree.
There is no implication on my part beyond the clear statement that Republicans have campaigned on a platform of “family values.”
I clearly was ironic (not to say sarcastic) in my post of 09-29-2001 02:05 PM. However, the only victims of that irony were the explicitly named “Moral Majority.”
I made no comment on the views or morals of the Democrats except to put quotation marks into the phrase we “all know”, indicating rather clearly that I do not believe the position taken by the “Moral Majority” can be accepted.
(For that matter, I have made no comment on the overall views or morals of Republicans except as they can be tarred by association by their Religious Right wing.)
Well, my post was directly in response to justinh’s posts about UCLA admissions. I do know that there are other opponents of affirmative action who take different approaches to the issue, and that my post has not really responded to them.
The statement was made that a white person would not get into UCLA because of the color of her skin. No information was posted about her academic performance, so I assumed that was treated as irrelevant.
My point is that without knowing anything about the person’s academic performance, white skin color is associated with more acceptance into UCLA, not less.
I agree. That data would be very interesting to see. It might also be difficult to obtain, which I suspect is why we don’t see more of it. How would one determine when ‘all else is equal?’
To get back to the issue of affirmative action, I think it is important for society to realize that people of some skin colors are disadvantaged. There is obvious discrimination, and there may also be more subtle forms of discrimination. As a community, we should endeavor to ensure that these forms of discrimination are eliminated.
I’m much more suspect of claims of widespread discrimination against whites (although I’m sure some cases of this must exist) than I am of claims of widespread discrimination against people of other skin colors.
This is not an example of double standards, but of an attempt to avoid applying different standards to politicians based on their party affiliation. Is sexual indiscretion a factor in Politician B’s actions while in office, considering that the affair occurred twenty years earlier? Is sexual indiscretion a factor in Politician A’s actions while in office (apart from ordering bombing of Iraq in an attempt to short circuit the impeachment proceedings)?
Even if the answer to both questions is no, perjury is still a crime the last time I checked. Politician A committed it; B did not.
At the very least, Bush’s repeated dodging of the issue during his campaign was a major embarassment – the guy refused to give a straightforward answer to the question, while simultaneously criticizing Clinton’s character as evasive.