No more AA at Michigan Law?

[Lindbergh]

The excuse that AA just stirs racial division is simply ri-f-ing-diculous, by the way; it's just a way for racists to rationalize their racism. Nothing more.

This is flatly ridiculous, and only someone wilfully blind could believe it.

Put yourself in the shoes of a poor, underprivileged white/asian.  Imagine yourself busting your ass to get into a good school.  Imagine yourself seeing a URM, who may well have had more advantages than you, getting admitted into that school ahead of you even if they had lower grades, scores, etc.  You don't think that's going to make you more resentful of that minority group?  You don't think the same thing hasn't made minorities resentful of whites in the past?

If you want to believe the benefits of AA outweight the negatives, that's fine.  But to ignore the negatives, and pretend they don't exist, is a recipe for disaster, at least if you care about race relations. 

[Lindbergh]

You're absolutely correct, TJ.  I'm very congenial. I love all people.  You know what else? At this point, I'll even have dinner with a polite racist who may want to reexamine his views.  What I will not do is tolerate ignorance from someone who has chosen to remain narrow minded for selfish (or other inexcusable) reasons.

Like most AA supporters?   

[Lindbergh]

Given all of those reasons (and more), I still support AA, because there aren't any better alternatives that could be implemented (at least in my opinion). 



How about simply focusing on economic opportunity?  This would appropriately help minorities affected by historical discrimination without unfairly benefitting privileged minorities.



Nearly four-hundred years of inequalities have certainly tilted the playing field against minorities in this country.  Though Irish immigrants could have just as easily been enslaved as African immigrants, they were not.  The racial component of slavery in America pretty much defeats any argument against AA made on the basis of the fact that pretty much every race or ethnic group in the world has been enslaved at one point or another.  Slavery was very often a temporary situation in other cultures, and ex-slaves could very often become wealthy, powerful men in the same society in which they had previously been enslaved.  Such was not the case in America.  Institutional racism, the "self-fulfilling prophecy," and many other factors have hampered any efforts to level the playing field.  Something has to be done, and most Americans are too lazy to fix the problem in any other way than with AA. 

I have to disagree with this reasoning.  Slavery was often a temporary situation in other cultures, but it was also often a permanent situation in other cultures.  Moreover, former slaves could and did become wealthy and influential in the U.S., which has always offered more ecomomic opportuity to blacks than any other nation.  (Slavery was often a temporary situation here as well, where many blacks eventually purchased their own freedom, and some even purchased their own slaves.)

Moreover, we should presumably focus on the present rather than the past when deciding what current policies make sense.  Today, many blacks are very successful, in various professions.  Oprah Winfrey is probably the most influential woman in the country (and one of the wealthiest).  Barack Obama is a leading contender for the Democratic nomination.  About 1/3 of all blacks make more than the average white, and about 1/3 of all whites make less than the average black. 

In other words, many millions of people now fall outside the traditional stereotypes, and making sweeping generalizations about the "playing field" no longer makes much sense.  Many blacks have significant advantages when applying to schools and jobs, just as many whites do.  Many other blacks and whites, on the other hand, face significant challenges.  Pretending that all blacks are underprivileged, and all whites are privileged, is simply a bigoted, irrational approach to social or admissions policy.

In terms of better alternatives, it seems a clearly superior (and more just) approach is to consider students in terms of economic background, not skin color.  This would presumably benefit those who have actually been impacted by historical discrimination, without unfairly penalizing poor/innocent white/asian/jewish kids.  Other, equally important approaches that have already begun include educational reform that equalizes funding at the K-12 level and requires that actual education occur in those schools, so they can compete more equally down the road. 

The real question is whether we're going to judge people as members of groups, or as individuals.  The former approach, while popular in the past, has been rightly condemned as unfair, unworthy, and ineffective. 

[OperaAttorney]

The excuse that AA just stirs racial division is simply ri-f-ing-diculous, by the way; it's just a way for racists to rationalize their racism. Nothing more.

This is flatly ridiculous, and only someone wilfully blind could believe it.

Put yourself in the shoes of a poor, underprivileged white/asian.  Imagine yourself busting your ass to get into a good school.  Imagine yourself seeing a URM, who may well have had more advantages than you, getting admitted into that school ahead of you even if they had lower grades, scores, etc.  You don't think that's going to make you more resentful of that minority group?  You don't think the same thing hasn't made minorities resentful of whites in the past?

If you want to believe the benefits of AA outweight the negatives, that's fine.  But to ignore the negatives, and pretend they don't exist, is a recipe for disaster, at least if you care about race relations. 

I won't discuss asians here, because asians don't RUN this country. (White men run this country.) With that said, I feel sorry for any white man who resents a URM in law school. (I'm being extremely diplomatic here.)

A URM having more advantages? URMs are not members of the most privileged group in this country. (Check the oval office for the correct answer.) 

A URM having lower grades/scores?  Whites with low grades/scores get into law school, too, so this argument is hardly cogent.

When have whites NEVER resented minority groups in this country?  I don't ever recall such a period.  In fact, your responses seem to indicate a DEEP RESENTMENT on your part.  But that's cool .

You may want to pretend "things" are wonderful--doing so suits your purposes so well--but you couldn't be further from the truth.  Yes, we've made progress since the 1960s, but this dialogue clearly indicates we still have a long way to go.  Race relations will remain negative as long as white males like you continue to display such a condescending, superior attitude towards blacks, latinos, etc.  I'm not surprised though.  Prejudiced apathy is endearing, isn't it?

[OperaAttorney]

Given all of those reasons (and more), I still support AA, because there aren't any better alternatives that could be implemented (at least in my opinion). 



How about simply focusing on economic opportunity?  This would appropriately help minorities affected by historical discrimination without unfairly benefitting privileged minorities.



Nearly four-hundred years of inequalities have certainly tilted the playing field against minorities in this country.  Though Irish immigrants could have just as easily been enslaved as African immigrants, they were not.  The racial component of slavery in America pretty much defeats any argument against AA made on the basis of the fact that pretty much every race or ethnic group in the world has been enslaved at one point or another.  Slavery was very often a temporary situation in other cultures, and ex-slaves could very often become wealthy, powerful men in the same society in which they had previously been enslaved.  Such was not the case in America.  Institutional racism, the "self-fulfilling prophecy," and many other factors have hampered any efforts to level the playing field.  Something has to be done, and most Americans are too lazy to fix the problem in any other way than with AA. 

I have to disagree with this reasoning.  Slavery was often a temporary situation in other cultures, but it was also often a permanent situation in other cultures.  Moreover, former slaves could and did become wealthy and influential in the U.S., which has always offered more ecomomic opportuity to blacks than any other nation.  (Slavery was often a temporary situation here as well, where many blacks eventually purchased their own freedom, and some even purchased their own slaves.)

Moreover, we should presumably focus on the present rather than the past when deciding what current policies make sense.  Today, many blacks are very successful, in various professions.  Oprah Winfrey is probably the most influential woman in the country (and one of the wealthiest).  Barack Obama is a leading contender for the Democratic nomination.  About 1/3 of all blacks make more than the average white, and about 1/3 of all whites make less than the average black. 

In other words, many millions of people now fall outside the traditional stereotypes, and making sweeping generalizations about the "playing field" no longer makes much sense.  Many blacks have significant advantages when applying to schools and jobs, just as many whites do.  Many other blacks and whites, on the other hand, face significant challenges.  Pretending that all blacks are underprivileged, and all whites are privileged, is simply a bigoted, irrational approach to social or admissions policy.

In terms of better alternatives, it seems a clearly superior (and more just) approach is to consider students in terms of economic background, not skin color.  This would presumably benefit those who have actually been impacted by historical discrimination, without unfairly penalizing poor/innocent white/asian/jewish kids.  Other, equally important approaches that have already begun include educational reform that equalizes funding at the K-12 level and requires that actual education occur in those schools, so they can compete more equally down the road. 

The real question is whether we're going to judge people as members of groups, or as individuals.  The former approach, while popular in the past, has been rightly condemned as unfair, unworthy, and ineffective. 

Perception is everything. Your #s may be accurate, but your interpretation--especially your discourse on slavery--is severely erroneous.  You attempt to write off slavery as a minor kink in the chain.  Again, I'm not surprised.

[PNym]

I won't discuss asians here, because asians don't RUN this country. (White men run this country.) With that said, I feel sorry for any white man who resents a URM in law school. (I'm being extremely diplomatic here.)

A URM having more advantages? URMs are not members of the most privileged group in this country. (Check the oval office for the correct answer.) 

If you look at the ethnic composition of Bush's cabinet over his two terms, you'll see that he has had two black secretaries of state, a hispanic attorney general, a Japanese secretary of transportation, and a Chinese secretary of labor. And that doesn't take into account the ethnicities of the caucasian members.

The ethnic composition of the other branches is also varied.

Furthermore, I'd much rather have our current system of government and institutions in place than the government of China or Taiwan, or even Singapore, regardless of the race of whoever happens to hold office at the moment.

The ethnic composition of the office-holders is less of a guarantee of the quality of a political institution than the systemic incentives and constraints facing the people in those roles. An unconstrained, un-checked or un-balanced institution whose office-holders face strong incentives to use the authority of their office to divert national resources to favored groups or impose their value system on the ruled is one where the ethnic composition does matter, if the office-holders plan to divert funds to their ethnic group, or impose values commonly-held by their ethnic group. Luckily, the United States government was designed to check against this possibility, as the Constitution intentionally set the branches and levels of government at cross-purposes with each other, and enacted a Bill of Rights to protect individuals from heavy-handed government activity.

A URM having lower grades/scores?  Whites with low grades/scores get into law school, too, so this argument is hardly cogent.

Probably not in the numbers that URMs get admitted with the same scores.

When have whites NEVER resented minority groups in this country?  I don't ever recall such a period.  In fact, your responses seem to indicate a DEEP RESENTMENT on your part.  But that's cool .

The Germans have historically been very tolerant of other ethnic groups, both in this country and in other countries. German anti-slavery kept Missouri on the Union side during the civil war, and also, with the Scots-Irish, allowed West Virginia to secede from Virginia. And Germans who lived in primarily German communities have had cordial relationships even with the native Americans (think of the Pennsylvania Deutch).

If you want to argue that some white people resent minorities, I wouldn't doubt that, but tarring and feathering all people of European descent as such is disproved both by historical evidence and present-day attitudes.

You may want to pretend "things" are wonderful--doing so suits your purposes so well--but you couldn't be further from the truth.  Yes, we've made progress since the 1960s, but this dialogue clearly indicates we still have a long way to go.  Race relations will remain negative as long as white males like you continue to display such a condescending, superior attitude towards blacks, latinos, etc.  I'm not surprised though.  Prejudiced apathy is endearing, isn't it?

I don't think many people who oppose affirmative action argue that things are wonderful (I don't), but rather, that affirmative action would make things much worse. Characterizing the opposition position as such displays your ignorance (which is understandable, as everyone is somewhat ignorant in something) or a willingness to set up straw men (which is not understandable, and is very intellectually dishonest).

Furthermore, based on the content of your reply, I'd argue that you're the one displaying a "a condescending, superior attitude" towards people who disagree with you, branding them with the presumption that their arguments are without merit (since the arguers are racists, bigots, etc.) simply because you disagree with them.

[t...]

The excuse that AA just stirs racial division is simply ri-f-ing-diculous, by the way; it's just a way for racists to rationalize their racism. Nothing more.

This is flatly ridiculous, and only someone wilfully blind could believe it.

Put yourself in the shoes of a poor, underprivileged white/asian.  Imagine yourself busting your ass to get into a good school.  Imagine yourself seeing a URM, who may well have had more advantages than you, getting admitted into that school ahead of you even if they had lower grades, scores, etc.  You don't think that's going to make you more resentful of that minority group?  You don't think the same thing hasn't made minorities resentful of whites in the past?

If you want to believe the benefits of AA outweight the negatives, that's fine.  But to ignore the negatives, and pretend they don't exist, is a recipe for disaster, at least if you care about race relations. 

1.You assume socio-economic hardships (or luxuries) are not being taken into account by ad-coms.

2. There is no justification for having a racist attitude - none. Quit being silly.

[Lindbergh]

The excuse that AA just stirs racial division is simply ri-f-ing-diculous, by the way; it's just a way for racists to rationalize their racism. Nothing more.

This is flatly ridiculous, and only someone wilfully blind could believe it.

Put yourself in the shoes of a poor, underprivileged white/asian.  Imagine yourself busting your ass to get into a good school.  Imagine yourself seeing a URM, who may well have had more advantages than you, getting admitted into that school ahead of you even if they had lower grades, scores, etc.  You don't think that's going to make you more resentful of that minority group?  You don't think the same thing hasn't made minorities resentful of whites in the past?

If you want to believe the benefits of AA outweight the negatives, that's fine.  But to ignore the negatives, and pretend they don't exist, is a recipe for disaster, at least if you care about race relations. 

I won't discuss asians here, because asians don't RUN this country. (White men run this country.) With that said, I feel sorry for any white man who resents a URM in law school. (I'm being extremely diplomatic here.)

As pseudo notes, minorities and women hold positions of wealth and power throughout the U.S. today.  To try to justify discrimination against poor asians and whites simply because SOME white males are in position of power makes no sense whatsoever, and again is a reflection of bigoted, racist thinking.

It should also be noted that Asians are screwed over more than anyone else by AA (and the quest for "proportional representation" in this country.)  When ethnic preferences were eliminated in California, guess what happened?  The number of minorities overall actually went UP, and the number of whites declined slightly. Why?  Because AA, in seeking a "proportional" mixture, artificially kept out asians and benefitted other groups, including whites.

Further, when you eliminate jewish folks from the equation, it's very likely that most other white ethnicities are in fact underrepresented in universities and law schools, particularly Irish, Italians, etc.  Again, generalizing on the basis of skin color simply doesn't make much sense.

A URM having more advantages? URMs are not members of the most privileged group in this country. (Check the oval office for the correct answer.) 

Some URM are underprivileged, and some are privileged, with far more advantages than most whites.  Some white are underprivileged, and some privileged, with far more advantages than most blacks.  What's silly is making bigoted assumptions on the basis of skin color when there is in reality so much variation in this country. 

(If Barack Obama gets elected, can we then assume that blacks are the most privileged group in this country?  Do you think poor whites really feel privileged because the president is currently white?)

You need to stop thinking in terms of groups (which is inherently racist and bigoted), and start thinking about people as individuals.

A URM having lower grades/scores?  Whites with low grades/scores get into law school, too, so this argument is hardly cogent.

The whole idea behind AA is letting in URM's with lower grades and scores.  How often do whites with lower grades and scores get into law school?  Not very.  However, if you want to apply a race-blind "underprivileged" test to all applicants, I'll certainly support that.

When have whites NEVER resented minority groups in this country?  I don't ever recall such a period.  In fact, your responses seem to indicate a DEEP RESENTMENT on your part.  But that's cool .

I think many whites have historically resented minorities, and I think many minorities have historically resented whites.  Racial tension has been a reality in pretty much every mixed society that has ever existed.  The question is whether we seek to minimize such tensions through fair, equitable treatment, or whether we exacerbate them through unfair, differential policies based on nothing but skin color. 

How exactly do my responses indicate "DEEP RESENTMENT"?  Because I oppose government policies that discriminate on the basis of race?  How about the fact that I'm a minority, and supposedly benefit from AA?  Does that change your analysis?  Or is anyone who favors just, equitable treatment for all citizens automatically a racist in your book?

You may want to pretend "things" are wonderful--doing so suits your purposes so well--but you couldn't be further from the truth.  Yes, we've made progress since the 1960s, but this dialogue clearly indicates we still have a long way to go. 

Because some people disagree with you, and feel official discrimination based on nothing but skin color is wrong?

Again, there are rational, fair, and effective ways to address lingering inequalities and injustice in society.  Improving poor K-12 schools is one obvious answer, and factoring disadvantages into admissions decisions is another.  But simply assuming that everyone from a certain group is privileged/underprivileged is neither rational, nor fair, nor effective. 

Race relations will remain negative as long as white males like you continue to display such a condescending, superior attitude towards blacks, latinos, etc.  I'm not surprised though.  Prejudiced apathy is endearing, isn't it?

I would argue that race relations will remain negative as long as we allow the government to discriminate on the basis of race, instead of treating people as individuals. 

Again, I'm a minority, and your unfounded assumptions simply highlight your own bigotry.  And how exactly have I displayed a condescending, superior attitudue towards other minorities?  Because I feel they can compete with whites when extraneous factors are accounted for?  Because I don't feel they need additional handouts? 

Isn't AA in reality what is truly condescening, in assuming that even privileged minorities need additional assistance in competing with whites/jews/asians?

As far as prejudiced apathy goes, you're the one that's clearly prejudiced in this argument, in making assumptions not only about whites and minorities generally, but about other posters in particular.  And your unwillingness to critically examine AA despite its obvious flaws is the very definition of apathy.  I guess that makes you an expert. 

[sharky]

There may be no justification for having a racist attitude, but that should be distinguished from resentment and racial tensions.  It doesn't really matter whether or not you feel that there can be justification for racial tensions. If one of the effects of a public policy is to inflame racial tensions, then that should be taken into consideration and weighed against the public policy benefits.  

To attempt to shut down debate with one sentence and "Quit being silly" shows a very superficial knee-jerk defense of a very complex public policy decision.  

I think in the end, supporting (or opposing) affirmative action is justified by a weighting of multiple values and fundamental beliefs about the role of government and society... if affirmative action leads to an increase of racial tensions and one of his highly valued policy goals is the reduction of racial tensions, then that's a perfectly valid reason for his opposition to affirmative action.  And if you want to debate on that point then you'll need to a) show that affirmative action doesn't lead to racial tension, b) convince him that the benefits of affirmative action outweigh the resulting racial tension by making arguments that cause him to reorder and reweight his values, or c) persuade him that reducing racial tension shouldn't be a policy goal.

[Lindbergh]

Given all of those reasons (and more), I still support AA, because there aren't any better alternatives that could be implemented (at least in my opinion). 



How about simply focusing on economic opportunity?  This would appropriately help minorities affected by historical discrimination without unfairly benefitting privileged minorities.



Nearly four-hundred years of inequalities have certainly tilted the playing field against minorities in this country.  Though Irish immigrants could have just as easily been enslaved as African immigrants, they were not.  The racial component of slavery in America pretty much defeats any argument against AA made on the basis of the fact that pretty much every race or ethnic group in the world has been enslaved at one point or another.  Slavery was very often a temporary situation in other cultures, and ex-slaves could very often become wealthy, powerful men in the same society in which they had previously been enslaved.  Such was not the case in America.  Institutional racism, the "self-fulfilling prophecy," and many other factors have hampered any efforts to level the playing field.  Something has to be done, and most Americans are too lazy to fix the problem in any other way than with AA. 

I have to disagree with this reasoning.  Slavery was often a temporary situation in other cultures, but it was also often a permanent situation in other cultures.  Moreover, former slaves could and did become wealthy and influential in the U.S., which has always offered more ecomomic opportuity to blacks than any other nation.  (Slavery was often a temporary situation here as well, where many blacks eventually purchased their own freedom, and some even purchased their own slaves.)

Moreover, we should presumably focus on the present rather than the past when deciding what current policies make sense.  Today, many blacks are very successful, in various professions.  Oprah Winfrey is probably the most influential woman in the country (and one of the wealthiest).  Barack Obama is a leading contender for the Democratic nomination.  About 1/3 of all blacks make more than the average white, and about 1/3 of all whites make less than the average black. 

In other words, many millions of people now fall outside the traditional stereotypes, and making sweeping generalizations about the "playing field" no longer makes much sense.  Many blacks have significant advantages when applying to schools and jobs, just as many whites do.  Many other blacks and whites, on the other hand, face significant challenges.  Pretending that all blacks are underprivileged, and all whites are privileged, is simply a bigoted, irrational approach to social or admissions policy.

In terms of better alternatives, it seems a clearly superior (and more just) approach is to consider students in terms of economic background, not skin color.  This would presumably benefit those who have actually been impacted by historical discrimination, without unfairly penalizing poor/innocent white/asian/jewish kids.  Other, equally important approaches that have already begun include educational reform that equalizes funding at the K-12 level and requires that actual education occur in those schools, so they can compete more equally down the road. 

The real question is whether we're going to judge people as members of groups, or as individuals.  The former approach, while popular in the past, has been rightly condemned as unfair, unworthy, and ineffective. 

Perception is everything. Your #s may be accurate, but your interpretation--especially your discourse on slavery--is severely erroneous.  You attempt to write off slavery as a minor kink in the chain.  Again, I'm not surprised.

Actually, reality is everything, and perception is nothing more than individual bias.  Whatever happened 100, or 200, or 1000 years ago, what we are dealing with now is the current reality.

If someone is educationally disadvantaged now by historical (or current) discrimination, that can be presumably addressed in admissions on a race-blind basis.  If they are not, it makes little sense to grant them preferential admission based simply on ethnicity, especially at the expense of whites/asians who may have suffered actual educational disadvantages. 

No one is saying that disadvantaged minorities shouldn't have that taken into account when applying to schools.  I don't even have a problem with giving a tip to minorities when they are otherwise evenly matched, in the interests of diversity.  What I am troubled by is the fact that the system generally appears to favor even very privileged minorities over poor whites/asians/jews, because I find this offensive on moral grounds.  In fact, I'm amazed that people even try to defend this, especially since the system could easily (and moderately) be reformed to address this particular issue.  Since most AA defenders claim this group is essentially nonexistent in the first place, it presumably wouldn't affect much.