I should clarify that I didn’t say Dowd was prejudiced. I asked whether one particular column was racist. IMHO it’s likely that she isn’t racist, but she’s insensitive to the type of criticisms she’s making about Thomas.
Note that Bob Grant is considered a racist by many for making comments that could have an innocent explanation. Look at this bit from holmes’s quote:
Isn’t this what Dowd and several posters said about Thomas?
Bob Grant seems to have made a few other comments that you don’t mention… what’s the “innocent explanation” for referring to African-Americans as “sub-humanoids” and “savages”? How about the idea that “mowing down” participants in the Gay Pride parade would be a fun thing to try?
Sorry, december… it appears to me that Grant had a proven track record of prejudice and racism, while you have not proven that Dowd has anything comparable to it. Your equating of the two is dishonest. Let’s move along, shall we?
Challenged, am I? With considerable redundance, it would seem.
Balderdash, december! Tommyrot!
Just so. I ask you what would have justified elevating Mr. Thomas to the Supreme Court, and you answer that his resume is “thin”. Indeed. A generous term.
Which is, of course, entirely my point, the one you have evaded with matadorish skill. You then go on to claim that his record after his elevation renders him a giant amongst the jurisprudent. Even if that were so, and I doubt it, that is entirely beside the point, unless you are claiming some clarovoyance that would allow his supporters to presume that he would become a terrific Justice. Was Ms. Cleo consulted on his nomination?
To break down my point into bite size: never mind telling me how great he was after his Elevation. Tell me what he did before that moment that justified such extravagant faith in his abilities. Other than, of course, his slavish adherence to political views that you find admirable.
What are you trying to say, elucidator? That only blacks can be slavish?
Racist! 
No. Only slaves should be glued.
So that’s what it is. And all along I thought people who said “nucular” were just plain ignorant.
So according to you, the Leader Of The Free World can’t be blamed for poor English usage because (after all) he’s Southern. If one were “barking mad”, one could interpret this as anti-Southern bigotry. :rolleyes:
[pet peeve hijack]
Texas is not part of the South. Alabama is the South, Georgia is the South. They are populated largely by crackers. Texas is Texas. We are peckerwoods.
[/pet peeve hijack]
That’s your problem, Jackmannii. We’ve had two recent Southern Presidents who pronounced the word that way. It’s a regional pronounciation, not ignorance. After all, one of these Presidents was a nucular engineer.
Not usage. Pronounciation. JFK misprounounced more words than Bush or Carter. He said pahk and cah instead of park and car. But, that was a charming Boston accent, not an ignorant Southern accent, according to those who are bigoted against Southerners.
elucidator, we seem be addressing two different points. You claim that Thomas had limited experience when he was appointed to the SC and that his race played a crucial role in his selection. OK. I fully agree.
This thread is about whether Dowd’s contemptuous dismissal of Thomas constitutes racism. Thomas’s one-time weakness of limited experience doesn’t apply today. It doesn’t justify her contempt.
In fact, even when he was appointed to the SC, his legal knowledge of affirmative action dwarfed hers. He was a Yale Law School graduate, had held high positions in civil rights enforcement and had been a appellate court judge for a short time. One can debate whether Dowd’s arrogant denigration of this man is racism, but it’s unquestionably disgusting.
Avalonian, I’m not here to defend Bob Grant. But, when he said a certain judge was appointed only because he’s black, that was offered as an example of racism. Why isn’t it an example of racism when Dowd said the same thing?
Is your defence of Dowd’s column that it’s less racist than the worst of Bob Grant? I agree.
With a defence like that, she doesn’t need any attackers.
Because (again), Dowd does not have the track record Grant has, and because Dowd did not say the “same thing” Grant did. To validly interpret Dowd’s words the way you want to, previous examples of a racist attitude expressed by Dowd about other African-Americans are required. On its own, her word choice is not racist.
Again, Grant has a history of vile racist rhetoric… Dowd does not. Can I make it much simpler?
Lovely time of the year for strawmen, isn’t it? So nice and dry… they go up like matchsticks.
Try re-reading what I said.
I don’t know why I’m bothering, frankly. I’m no fan of Dowd, and december’s not going to listen anyway… hell with it. I’m done. Cry “racist” all you want, december, it’s still shit, and I think you know it, somewhere in there.
Jackmannii: Link?
Sorry, as I said, I was reading the article I mentioned in the wood-pulp version. You now know as much about its bibliographical identification as I do.
One of the poorest justifications for controversial affirmative action programs is the implication by supporters that most or all of the non-minority applicants have a built-in advantage due to “legacies”, i.e. ancestors who have monetary or other influence with schools or employers.
I don’t know about claims specifically involving “ancestors with monetary or other influence”. I do know that for most of the twentieth century, racial minorities were entirely or largely excluded from many schools and jobs.
That means that any “legacy preferences” that those schools and employers may have—be they explicit “alumni-brat” favoritism such as many colleges practice, or simply positive perceptions of traditions like “a proud history of multigeneration firefighting”—exclusively (or at least overwhelmingly) benefit white applicants.
Actually, due to the absence of a link or even quotes, we know even less than you about the article’s purported statements. **
[/quote]
As for the other article you did link to, you’re hopefully aware that it doesn’t even make any allegations of racism.
For example:
“I was on the list with a guy who had an equal or slightly higher score. He was a veteran; he got the job,” James White said. “Just because my father is on the department, I don’t think it pulls much weight.”…In Lawrence, Romero suspects the city will see a second generation of Hispanic officers follow the mothers and fathers that have smashed the racial barrier there. And in departments everywhere, parents still bring the uniqueness of public safety work home to their children."
Your point makes a bit of sense, but you’re overstating its importance.
First of all, racial minorities were not excluded from most colleges and universities. Excluded means “kept out.” Most blacks didn’t attended, because they lacked the money, the educational background, etc. But, those who had the wherewithall could and did attend college throughout the twentieth century.
Second, the legacy preferences didn’t go to immigrant groups of Jews and Asians, but those two groups came to be wildly overrepresented in top colleges.
December You know you’re losing whatever credibility you have everytime you post something like that.
I mean, I could have sworn that there was something called…oh I don’t know segregation, that made it ILLEGAL for for blacks to attent certain colleges in the South.
But I guess in that Parallel Universe of yours, those African Americans, didn’t go to those colleges, not because they wereexcluded, but because their SAT scores were too low. Tell that to James Meredith:
No, Meredith wasn’t excluded, he just “lacked the money, the educational background, etc.” No shame.
Everytime you post like that, you dishonour the memory of great people who risked much, to save this nation, from itself.
Obviously segregation where it existed was morally wrong. However, it was lack of funds and lack of education that kept most black college enrollment very low throughout the the entire country. Most colleges did not exclude qualified blacks who could afford to attend. There just weren’t very many of them.
First of all, racial minorities were not excluded from most colleges and universities. Excluded means “kept out.” Most blacks didn’t attended, because they lacked the money, the educational background, etc. But, those who had the wherewithall could and did attend college throughout the twentieth century.
No. Factually wrong. Blacks were excluded from attending the vast majority of colleges and universities, public and private, in the South (where the great majority of blacks lived). Many Northern colleges and universities either excluded blacks or only admitted very light skinned blacks who were not identifiably black.
New York Supreme Court justice Bruce Wright (known as “turn 'em loose Bruce” to you right wingers) was admitted to Princeton, based on grades, test-scores etc. They didn’t know he was black. When he tried to attend classes, university personnel told him in no uncertain terms that he was not welcome. He left. (See his autobio, Black Robes, White Justice)
There were lots of Northern schools with no official policy of exclusion, but they practiced exclusion extensively. Black students who tried to attend were discouraged, harrassed, and even assaulted. The example of Paul Robeson having his fingernails yanked out comes to mind.
Is it really neccessary to distort history to support your claims?
Hiring-policy shift has whites eyeing fire jobs
It took me two minutes to find this article based solely on the information provided by Kimstu. I suppose anyone actually interested in reading it could have done the same.
I suppose that if Kimstu had been interested in linking to the article, it could have been done in the first place.
Perhaps this was not done because the article does not have the slant Kimstu originally claimed for it. Kimstu had said:
“(I was reading an unintentionally funny article the other day in a (quite liberal) Northeastern newspaper, all about how a couple of high-scoring white applicants were likely to achieve their longstanding dream of being firemen because the city had rescinded its minority-preferences policy. The author made a big deal of how these guys’ fathers and uncles and even grandfathers had been firemen, and stressed how especially unfair it was to have passed them over for minorities "despite their family connections and high scores.”
In reality, what the article makes a big deal about (quoting the NAACP and a minority firefighters group, for example) is the claim that if minorities and whites compete equally on the basis of test scores, minority hiring will fall off drastically. The article also contains this pearl: “Since 2000, no white applicant who scored lower than 100 has been hired as a Boston firefighter, unless he or she was a veteran or the son or daughter of a firefighter killed or disabled at work, the Globe analysis found.”
The court decision overturning the Boston hiring policy found that minorities were now actually slightly overrepresented on the fire department, so the “one for one” hiring policy was not proper.
Maybe some non-minorities whose relatives were not previous fire commissioners will now get a fair chance to compete for jobs.
Because he’s black.
Dowd assumes that Thomas only got into Yale Law School because of affirmative action. After all, he’s black. In her world, the idea of a black man achieving his own success without help from kindly Big Massa is inconceivable.
Dowd is saying, in essence, that Thomas couldn’t have written a strong legal opinion - he’s black. Thomas couldn’t have gotten into Yale on his own - he’s black. Thomas can’t write legal opinions for himself - his clerks have to do it all for him, because he’s black.
In Dowd’s world, the only thing blacks are good for is to say “Yassuh” to the liberal establishment. If you do that, they will pat you on the head and throw you a nice cushy government job. They don’t expect much of you in that job - after all, you are black, and everybody knows what that means. All you really have to do is act happy when they tell you too, and make it clear that you are grateful to your betters for treating you better than you deserve.
If you do that, you will be a good boy, and they will remember you when handing out the government goodies. If you don’t, you’re an uppity n****r, and liberals hate that.
Of course, we don’t lynch any more. We dig up somebody from your past who does know her place, and get her to tell lies about you.
And if that doesn’t work, we write columns about you for the rest of your life to try to put you in your place.
Regards,
Shodan
Her other point was that Thomas is ‘ungrateful’ for affirmative action, and that he’s ‘pulling the ladder up behind him’, preventing other blacks from benefitting from the programs that benefitted him.
Taking this logic and applying it to other subjects, does this then mean that white judges were wrong to vote against racial discrimination? After all, didn’t they get where they were partly because of institutionalized discrimination? Wouldn’t they be ‘pulling the ladder up behind them’ by preventing other whites from benefitting like they did?
Or how about male justices that voted to give women equal rights? Didn’t they benefit from discrimination against women? How dare the ingrates strike back laws discriminating against women, after they themselves benefitted from those very laws!
That is, in fact, what Maureen Dowd is saying. But of course, since she wouldn’t treat those two cases the same, the difference is that… Thomas is Black. He’s not allowed to have the same kinds of freedom of thought as white people are. As you say, he’s supposed to just shrink back, be grateful that liberals helped him get where he is (because ‘obviously’ he would never have gone to college or made it to the SC in any other way), and now he’s beholden to them for life. He must walk in lockstep with them, saying ‘Yes, massuh!’, or he’s an ungrateful negro.
Dowd is an idiot. She always has been. It’s only really showing now because she’s writing on topics that have more veritas. Back in the 90’s, her brand of snarky fluff may have been right for the times. After 9/11, she just comes across as a partisan idiot.