.

[1654134681665465]

.

[steuby]

I kinda feel for the minority students at Top 25 schools.. I think that AA really places a stigma on them, even if they have better academic credentials than their classmates.

Look at Clarence Thomas -- he still has a chip on his shoulder.

[OperaAttorney]

Look at Clarence Thomas -- he still has a chip on his shoulder.

maybe.  but that's not a great reason for him to give the attorneys arguing in front of him the silent treatment.

Clarence Thomas has a chip on his shoulder for reasons other than AA.

[OperaAttorney]

Here are some excerpts from the CNN article:

Ward Connerly, who heads the American Civil Rights Coalition -- a nonprofit organization working to end racial and gender preferences -- and the main backer of the ballot initiatives, says the 37 word initiative would read: "The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting."

"It would forbid any state or local agency or special district from engaging in preferential treatment," Connerly said. Connerly, who is of African-American and American Indian descent, said affirmative action causes resentment. He criticized cases in which a Caucasian student might be denied a college slot in favor of a black student with a lower grade-point average. "It's foolish not to think that the kid who is turned away is not going to ... resent that," Connerly said.

Shanta Driver, National Director of United for Equality and Affirmative Action Legal Defense Fund -- an organization dedicated to integrating minority students in educational institutions -- said the ballot initiative is a mistake. "It places us in the position of denying ... equal opportunity to blacks and Latinos," she said. Driver and other affirmative action supporters believe this movement would erase the progress made since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "It's obviously a huge step backwards," she said.

My thoughts

If systemic racism were non-existent in this country, I would be in full support of Ward Connerly and his anti-AA campaign. But this is not the case. The vestiges of racism still linger in an imposing manner, necessitating the existence of AA policies. Our country's AA policies may not be perfect--what on earth is?--but they serve an important and necessary purpose, as Shanta Driver claims.

I'm also puzzled by Ward Connerly's constant reference to the resentment that AA supposedly fosters amongst us. At first glance Connerly's argument seems plausible, but it presents some problems, for me at least, when situated within our societal context. First, it oversimplifies the issue. AA policies were established because women and people of color were the victims of systemic discrimination. It is not just a black-and-white issue. Second, Connerly fails to account for the resentment intrinsic to race relations in this country. In fact, I'm inclined to think that he considers it non-existent or, at worst, negligible. But what about whites who resent blacks and latinos because of their skin color, not AA? They still exist today; I've had the "pleasure" of interacting with some of them at school and elsewhere. Racial antagonism existed in America long before 1964, and only an idiot would think that ending AA will substantially increase racial amity.

Will Ward Connerly and his cohorts succeed in banning AA in these 5 states? I think so, unfortunately. America's ruling zeitgeist is premised on the false notion that racism no longer holds us captive. How will public institutions respond? By finding clever, legal means to circumvent the obstacle. But they'll still have their hands tied. What does this mean for URM law school applicants? That private schools are probably the better bet. This is just my opinion, of course.

[filet o' fish]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/affirmative.action/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

"If it was wrong when I was born in '39 ... it's wrong now," he said. "If it was wrong to do it against a brown-skinned man, it's wrong to do it against a white man."

Such a simple concept-I don't understand why some people continue to refuse to accept it.  You can tell yourself that red roses are blue, but that won't change the facts of reality. 

What is your motivation behind this crusade of yours?

Did a brown skinned man wrong you at some point in your life? Or are you just afraid of them? What is it?

[OperaAttorney]

Look at Clarence Thomas -- he still has a chip on his shoulder.

maybe.  but that's not a great reason for him to give the attorneys arguing in front of him the silent treatment.

Clarence Thomas has a chip on his shoulder for reasons other than AA.

your explanation?

He's a pathetic sellout. If Thomas could change his skin color, he probably would.

[worstapplicantever]

even if they have better academic credentials than their classmates.

except they will rarely if ever have better credentials, because if they did they would be at harvard or yale.

[goaliechica]

As long as Whites are the majority, there is always going to be the cry of "institutional racism".  So are you proposing that AA continue until there are more Blacks and Hispanics than Whites?  If this is the case, then I would venture that your motivations are racist. 

I know this isn't what you're on about, but being in the majority doesn't mean that you stop being oppressed. Look at South Africa.

[simonsays]

I agree that AA was needed when it was first implemented.  The problem with such a program is that no one is EVER going to agree that it should be ended.  As long as Whites are the majority, there is always going to be the cry of "institutional racism".  So are you proposing that AA continue until there are more Blacks and Hispanics than Whites?  If this is the case, then I would venture that your motivations are racist. 

But you realize the biggest beneficiaries of AA as a whole are white men? 

The reason is not related to race, but that more and more women are are entering the professional ranks.  Of the women, white women represent the largest percentage.  When you consider that the current standard of living typically requires a 2-income household, two professional wage-earners do much better than a single wage-earner.  When you break down the demographics white/asians as a whole have higher percentages of both sexes with professional degrees, and double the earning power.  This also reduces the necessity of the male to maximize earnings, given the margin of slack is in the female's income.

 

[goaliechica]

Oh, so as long as there are Whites IN America, then AA should continue-because as long as there are Whites, there will be oppression? 

This is why I don't take people in favor of AA seriously. 

Um, no. What? 

My point was that the question of who is or isn't a minority in terms of absolute numbers is mostly meaningless.

Some might argue that AA should continue until there is a more equitable balance of power in terms of who controls the government, businesses, higher education, etc. You are right that there is no clear way to decide when that will be, but your argument that the perception of inequity is based on absolute numbers doesn't make any sense. The perception of inequities that some people feel should be addressed by AA comes from the fact there are, in fact, inequities in terms of power, influence, wealth, etc. Doesn't mean AA is the way to fix it, but your comment that until whites are a minority, or until whites are not present at all, people will be able to cry institutionalized racism is distorted. People cry institutionalized racism because of actual, measurable inequalities. Doesn't prove or disprove institutionalized racism, or the need for AA, but that's where it's coming from.