[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
Because liberals will never admit that affirmative action no longer serves any useful purpose, no matter what the facts are–and you’ve proven yourself pretty much a typical liberal (i.e. utterly unconcerned with facts).
[/QUOTE]
As a liberal myself, I’m still unclear on which facts are supposed to convince me that “affirmative action no longer serves any useful purpose.” I certainly haven’t seen you post any such facts.
I may have discovered why you feel lonesome.
If you were concerned about how much progress everyone makes over the longhaul and if you were always concerned about the other fellow’s rights as much as you are concerned about your own, you would be too busy seeking social justice to ever feel sorry for yourself.
It is only fair that you have your rights considered. But in turn, you must consider the rights of others and you say that you don’t do that anymore. Combine that attitude with violence and you have the opposite of what this country was founded on or will tolerate.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
For one thing, I think the case for Affirmative Action is much more reasonable and broadly accepted than is the case for reparations. It’s rather hard for me to imagine the logic behind arguing for less Affirmative Action while arguing for more in the way of reparations.
[/quote]
I haven’t really thought about reparations (until you just brought it up). I guess I am asking if a black president signifies a watershed moment when we look around and realize that while there is still racism in America (and there probably always will be), we have reached the point where we can ratchet it back a bit (not get rid of it).
They might be a largely immigrant population. There might be cultural differences like emphasis on education or material wealth. There might be differences in baseline socio-economic status. There might be a high incidence of teenage pregnancy and single motherhood. There are all sorts of reasons for socioeconomic differences in race that are not primarily the result of racism.
[QUOTE=scr4]
Could you at least try to explain why you think the idea is ridiculous?
[/QUOTE]
I think its naive. If the standard is perfect homogeneity we will NEVER get there. The standard has to be a reasonably comparable level of real opportunity. I think that one of the biggest legacies of slavery and segregation is the lack of faith in socioeconomic mobility among black children. I think that real opportunity requires a society where children do not have their aspirations capped by perceptions and I thought perhaps having a black president might change those perceptions.
Maybe its premature and I’m just getting excited by one aspect of what Obama means to this country.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
Affirmative action was never necessary and never should have been instituted in the first place. And now that we’ve got it, the left is going to do everything they can to keep it and expand it as much as possible. No matter how much progress blacks and Hispanics make, the left will always blame whites for all their troubles, never concede that sufficient progress has been made and will never concede that it’s time to eliminate AA. So it’s pointless to discuss what criteria should be used for deciding when to end affirmative action. The left doesn’t want it to end and will never accept any such criteria. So far as the left is concerned, whites will always be guilty of racism and no evidence can ever exonerate them.
[/QUOTE]
I see from your Location line that this comes from the Ministry of Truth. :dubious:
Maybe Affirmative Action wasn’t necessary where you live. Maybe it was & it’s done its job, & you just don’t know how things used to be. But there were places where it was needed, & it has a natural lifespan, which has not yet passed. If all goes well, it could be rationally ready to expire in about 10-30 years. But at the established rate of social change, it still has too much usefulness to yet discard.
[QUOTE=Paper Pusher]
I haven’t really thought about reparations (until you just brought it up). I guess I am asking if a black president signifies a watershed moment when we look around and realize that while there is still racism in America (and there probably always will be), we have reached the point where we can ratchet it back a bit (not get rid of it).
[/QUOTE]
But the reality is, and has been for a while, that an truly exceptional person can succeed in the most intolerable of circumstances. Jack Johnson was a world champion boxer (who married White women) in 1908. Madam C.J. Walker was a was an American businesswoman, hair care entrepreneur, tycoon (millionaire) and philanthropist in the early 1900’s. This being Black history month, I’m sure you don’t need to be inundated with examples of successful Black people. All of them, watershed moments at the time, did very little to chip away our collective racism in and of themselves. Even today Obama, is one of five Black senators ever, and one of 121 Blacks since 1868 to serve in congress. He is the exception. It illogical to use him as a measuring stick for the success of a group. That’s why we use the median as opposed to the average, in many statistical situations, to get a more accurate understanding of what is happening. Looking to Obama a a measure of AA success is like looking to Bill Gates to gauge the American economy. Surely, there will be a day when affirmative action is not needed, but the decision to scrap it should not be made based on the accomplishments of a few select people.
Obama’s success does not make it easier for the average Black person, by and large. Do you really think having a Black president prevents people with Black-sounding names from getting their resumes passed over? Does it make less likely that an inner-city Black kids will be harrassed by the cops? Does it ease the fears people have when walking next to a Black man on an isolated street at night? Does it prevent people from not wanting to buy a house in a Black neighborhood? Does it change that fact that many people feel Blackness is a negative? Yes, having prominent Blacks in positions of power is important, but let’s keep in mind that social programs are tailored to the average person, not the exceptional one. When the playing field is level for the average Black guy we can get rid of affirmative action.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
But the reality is, and has been for a while, that an truly exceptional person can succeed in the most intolerable of circumstances. Jack Johnson was a world champion boxer (who married White women) in 1908. Madam C.J. Walker was a was an American businesswoman, hair care entrepreneur, tycoon (millionaire) and philanthropist in the early 1900’s. This being Black history month, I’m sure you don’t need to be inundated with examples of successful Black people. All of them, watershed moments at the time, did very little to chip away our collective racism in and of themselves. Even today Obama, is one of five Black senators ever, and one of 121 Blacks since 1868 to serve in congress. He is the exception. It illogical to use him as a measuring stick for the success of a group. That’s why we use the median as opposed to the average, in many statistical situations, to get a more accurate understanding of what is happening. Looking to Obama a a measure of AA success is like looking to Bill Gates to gauge the American economy. Surely, there will be a day when affirmative action is not needed, but the decision to scrap it should not be made based on the accomplishments of a few select people.
Obama’s success does not make it easier for the average Black person, by and large. Do you really think having a Black president prevents people with Black-sounding names from getting their resumes passed over? Does it make less likely that an inner-city Black kids will be harrassed by the cops? Does it ease the fears people have when walking next to a Black man on an isolated street at night? Does it prevent people from not wanting to buy a house in a Black neighborhood? Does it change that fact that many people feel Blackness is a negative? Yes, having prominent Blacks in positions of power is important, but let’s keep in mind that social programs are tailored to the average person, not the exceptional one. When the playing field is level for the average Black guy we can get rid of affirmative action.
[/QUOTE]
We have had some form of race based Affirmative Action since 1961. It had gotten increasingly more preferential over time. That is 47 years of affirmative action, two generations of affirmative action. Do you think Barack Obama could have become president in 1961? If not then haven’t we made progress? Do we really have to keep race based Affirmative Action around until there is economic parity between black and white?
At this point how much of the disparities between black and white are the result of current socioeconomic class and how much is due to race?
[QUOTE=athelas]
And as dgrdfe pointed out, income disparity does not prove discrimination, as it could easily be due to differing priorities. (Artists are predominantly poor. Does society discriminate against artists, and should art majors get hiring preferences?)
[/QUOTE]
This is true. It can be argued that differing priorities are due to income disparity which has resulted from years of discrimination.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
[QUOTE=Paper Pusher]
We have had some form of race based Affirmative Action since 1961. It had gotten increasingly more preferential over time. That is 47 years of affirmative action, two generations of affirmative action. Do you think Barack Obama could have become president in 1961?
[/QUOTE]
Could a Black man have been elected to the US Senate in 1870? My gut tells me Obama would not have been able to be elected but I don’t think anyone can really say for sure. Either way, AA’s effectiveness should not be measured by the progress of the Obama’s of the world.
[QUOTE=Paper Pusher]
If not then haven’t we made progress? Do we really have to keep race based Affirmative Action around until there is economic parity between black and white?
[/QUOTE]
Of course we’ve made progress. We have come come from institutionalized slavery; having made some progress is not that exceptional. The question is if there are numerous hurdles that create a dramatically skewed paying field for Blacks and Whites. We still have countless examples of that still being the case. I don’t necessarily blame AA for the lack of progress. The program is trying to fix the problems for which it was conceived, in addition to new problems, with racially polarizing effects, created by things like drug prohibition, public housing policies, lack of infrastructure investment, migration of low-skill jobs, globalization, consumerism, and immigration. That’s why AA has been more effective for women, the primary beneficiaries, than for Blacks. I’ve said nothing about economic parity. Sure, it would be nice, but that is not the only goal I’d have in mind.
[QUOTE=Paper Pusher]
At this point how much of the disparities between black and white are the result of current socioeconomic class and how much is due to race?
[/QUOTE]
A lot of it is. I don’t think anyone doubts that. But if some of the things that inhibit Black success are apparent across the economic spectrum, then the issue is far more wide reaching. Do the hiring managers who pass over resumes with Black sounding names care if the person is rich? Things like that have very deleterious effects. A good job is often the thing that lifts one out of generational poverty. People are being denied that based solely on perceived Blackness. I won’t attempt to guess how many of the problems Blacks face are due to race, but I know it’s far more than there should be in a world that is anything close to fair.
[tiny hijack] I’m just wondering how many people, upon first glance at the thread title, were thinking of Obama Girl [/tiny hijack]
As for reparations, I think they’re a stupid idea. The slave-owning generation is dead, and I owe no money or apologies for their crime. However, the legacy of slavery remains, and I agree that something needs to be done to fight it. I dunno if AA is it, but something must be done. Obama is not a magic wand, but hopefully he’s at leasta symbolic victory, like Jesse Owens.
[QUOTE=Love Rhombus]
As for reparations, I think they’re a stupid idea. The slave-owning generation is dead, and I owe no money or apologies for their crime. However, the legacy of slavery remains, and I agree that something needs to be done to fight it.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, the slave owners are dead, but plenty of people who participated, or were affected by institutionalized segregation/racism are still alive. Not to mention that there are racially unjust policies that are still in effect.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Not to mention that there are racially unjust policies that are still in effect.
[/QUOTE]
Like what?
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Either way, AA’s effectiveness should not be measured by the progress of the Obama’s of the world.
[/quote]
I am not talking about AA’s effectiveness to date (or going forward). I am talking about the continued need for AA (in its current form).
Can you please point out some of these race specific hurdles (that cannot be addressed by race blind socioeconomic affirmtive action)? What racial “skews” exist today that we can remedy with affirmative action.
What inhibits black success across the economic spectrum?
As for the name thing, I think its silly.
[QUOTE=Paper Pusher]
As for the name thing, I think its silly.
[/QUOTE]
In what way?
Silly, as in people who discriminate thusly are silly (albeit not so silly to the blacks affected by it)? I doubt you’ll find a ton of disagreement.
Silly, as in people who think that form of discrimination happens are being silly? You’ll get disagreement here.
[QUOTE=DMC]
In what way?
Silly, as in people who discriminate thusly are silly (albeit not so silly to the blacks affected by it)? I doubt you’ll find a ton of disagreement.
Silly, as in people who think that form of discrimination happens are being silly? You’ll get disagreement here.
[/QUOTE]
Silly in that discriminating based on name is silly (and I’d like to see a link that supports this contention) and silly in that you can legally change your name if it is such a big deal.
[QUOTE=Paper Pusher]
Silly in that discriminating based on name is silly (and I’d like to see a link that supports this contention) and silly in that you can legally change your name if it is such a big deal.
[/QUOTE]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E5DD123AF931A25751C1A9649C8B63
Do you seriously think we should expect a black person to change their name to be given a fair shake? Perhaps we should get them to drink out of a different fountain, as well, just to keep them from annoying the racists that still run around.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Sure, the slave owners are dead, but plenty of people who participated, or were affected by institutionalized segregation/racism are still alive. Not to mention that there are racially unjust policies that are still in effect.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but I didn’t do it. I kept no slaves, I’ve not oppressed any peoples. I’ve done nothing. Your grandfather was a slave, KKK burned down your house, someone got lynched back in the day? I’m sorry, I really am. But I didn’t do it.
And name discrimination IS silly. Will I think a name like Jo’qanda is odd? Sure. But I’d like to think I wouldn’t think less of you. Now if your name is Allegra…Oy. Just put in a little thought, ask around before you names yer kid.
[QUOTE=dgrdfd]
Like what?
[/QUOTE]
Drug sentencing policies, criminal sentencing disparities, zoning laws which allow for environmental racism, drug enforcement policies, etc.
[QUOTE=Love Rhombus]
Yes, but I didn’t do it. I kept no slaves, I’ve not oppressed any peoples. I’ve done nothing. Your grandfather was a slave, KKK burned down your house, someone got lynched back in the day? I’m sorry, I really am. But I didn’t do it.
[/QUOTE]
So what? This isn’t about YOU as an individual. The government must look out for society as a whole. Taking that position means that government must not do anything an individual person takes exception to. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. I didn’t have anything to do with the Korean War, but I am still paying for it. I pay for tons of things that have nothing to do with my actions as a person. That’s the compromise we all make to live in a society with rules and laws that has existed and taken actions on the behalf of its citizens for centuries.
[QUOTE=Love Rhombus]
And name discrimination IS silly. Will I think a name like Jo’qanda is odd? Sure. But I’d like to think I wouldn’t think less of you. Now if your name is Allegra…Oy. Just put in a little thought, ask around before you names yer kid.
[/QUOTE]
Thought? What exactly is more thoughtful about naming your kid Emily instead of Allegra? All names are made up. Just because one is more common, or has more historical significance doesn’t give anyone a right to deny you a job or a place to live. Unless you are suggesting that people outside the dominant culture must conform in order to avoid being discriminated against, I think you completely missing the point.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
But the reality is, and has been for a while, that an truly exceptional person can succeed in the most intolerable of circumstances. Jack Johnson was a world champion boxer (who married White women) in 1908. Madam C.J. Walker was a was an American businesswoman, hair care entrepreneur, tycoon (millionaire) and philanthropist in the early 1900’s. This being Black history month, I’m sure you don’t need to be inundated with examples of successful Black people. All of them, watershed moments at the time, did very little to chip away our collective racism in and of themselves. Even today Obama, is one of five Black senators ever, and one of 121 Blacks since 1868 to serve in congress. He is the exception. It illogical to use him as a measuring stick for the success of a group. That’s why we use the median as opposed to the average, in many statistical situations, to get a more accurate understanding of what is happening. Looking to Obama a a measure of AA success is like looking to Bill Gates to gauge the American economy. Surely, there will be a day when affirmative action is not needed, but the decision to scrap it should not be made based on the accomplishments of a few select people.
Obama’s success does not make it easier for the average Black person, by and large. Do you really think having a Black president prevents people with Black-sounding names from getting their resumes passed over? Does it make less likely that an inner-city Black kids will be harrassed by the cops? Does it ease the fears people have when walking next to a Black man on an isolated street at night? Does it prevent people from not wanting to buy a house in a Black neighborhood? Does it change that fact that many people feel Blackness is a negative? Yes, having prominent Blacks in positions of power is important, but let’s keep in mind that social programs are tailored to the average person, not the exceptional one. When the playing field is level for the average Black guy we can get rid of affirmative action.
[/QUOTE]
brickbacon, a damn fine post.
Intergenerational transfer is what it’s all about. Imagine if everyone who was a slave actually was able to pass along property through generations. Or if slaves were even remotely paid for the work they performed. Would everybody be stinkin’ rich? No. Would every family descended from slaves make wise decisions about investing their money? Of course not. But there would be much greater distribution of wealth. And perhaps the Black underclass in cities like Detroit and Chicago wouldn’t have migrated from Alabama and Mississippi if they had been able to make a living for themselves in their native states, where they now live in subsidized housing with no property owned in the families.
The cycle of poverty is real. Having taught in the inner city, I know that the kids in those schools are as smart as the kids in the suburbs. Without the resources, and more importantly, with the impediments these kids grow up with (which are not their fault), they’re fated to do just as well, maybe a little better, maybe a little worse, than their parents.
White privilege is real. There are certain hassles that White people as a general rule don’t deal with, just as I can say there are hassles that women encounter that I don’t as a man. More importantly, it’s not enough to say “I didn’t do it” and wipe one’s hands clean of responsibility to act. The question is, “What are you doing to level the playing field for everybody?” I didn’t create misogyny, but I’ve certainly benefited from the advantages afforded to me as a man. I educate and involve myself in policy decisions that attempt to address these inequities.
Oh yeah. Back to the OP. The young Misses Obamas will likely be admitted to any school of their choice. Mom and Dad are both Ivy-League educated and they fork out $10,000 a year on extracurricular activities. With that grounding they will be well-situated to be competitive for admissions to any school.
More importantly (for private schools), they have parents with the means to pay their way. And their admission will bring attention and media to the school they choose. All indicators suggest that they will have successful careers - which means that they will be more likely to GIVE back to their alma maters.
This is why schools will be falling over themselves to admit these girls. Race has a fractional role in the decision. It’s nice, but they’ll be getting the same kind of set up that Chelsea C. and Amy C. got when they went to college.