.
.
.
As I toil away as a blogger, the tone and fervor of posts and comments has led me to ask a pretty basic question – are racism and sexism OK? I always thought that the answer was absolutely no and that the civil rights movement and the women’s movement had made huge strides to eliminate bias. As I listen to the debate I am increasingly confused by the rhetoric.
As with many things, this may come down simply to definitions. I define racism as “any action which discriminates against or singles our for benefit one race over another – all people, regardless of their perceived “race” should be treated equally.” I define sexism as “any action which discriminates against or singles our for benefit one gender over another – all people, regardless of their gender should be treated equally.” It would be pretty hard to argue against the fact that many folks in America’s past (and even today) have been subjected to racism and sexism using these definitions – in my humble opinion that is wrong and should not be tolerated in our society.
To “counteract” these forms of discrimination a number of government programs have been created and laws passed that in and of themselves are sexist and racist using my definition. “Affirmative action” allows preferences in the admission into schools or hiring for jobs based on race. Employment termination laws are unequally enforced in Orange County (and California) in ways that benefit certain races and gender at the expense of others. There are government programs set up to benefit MBE (Minority owned Business Enterprises) and WBE (Woman owned Business Enterprise) at the expense of those that do not categorize themselves as MBE or WBE. There are private groups everywhere that have exclusionary policies and names such as “The Women’s _____ group,” “the Latino ______ group,” and many others.
The funny thing is that NONE of these government actions define “race.” As far as I can tell, my family was in the United States and Western Europe for most of the last 2 1/2 millenia and yet there is nothing in any of these goverment schemes that would stop me from indicating that I am “black” or “latino” or “eskimo.” There is no defined level of of skin color or time from separation from someone’s country of origin that qualifies or disqualifies anyone from membership in any of these racial classifications.
I put three questions to you, the loyal reader:
1) Are these government programs and private actions racist or sexist?
2) Are programs like these necessary to counteract past discrimination?
3) Does there come a time when these poilicies stop counteracting past discrimination and start being racism and sexism in and of themselves?
1) No
2) Yes
3) No
Thank you.
99 percent of people are racist. That is because most people will agree Sub-Saharan blacks can stay out in the sun longer than Northern European whites. That claim is solely based on the color of their skin (ie. race) and is generally regarded as the truth.
99 percent of people are also sexist. That is because most people agree that men can’t have babies and, on average, are physically stronger than women. Again, that is generally regarded as the truth.
I don’t have a problem with people being racist or sexist. The statistics on marriage suggest that most people marry an individual within the same race of the opposite sex. That’s a perfect example of people being racist AND sexist at the same time.
What I have a problem with are mentally unbalanced people being violent toward anyone or any particular group of people. Just because people are racist and sexist, doesn’t mean we can’t get along.
JT,
I’m just wondering who are those 1% who believe that men can have babies?
Schwarzenegger fans.
Made me laugh out loud Vern. Any reference to Junior is all right in my book.
haha, yeah, that’s a good one 🙂 In my mind I figured the 1 percent would be for the contrarians out there. I was once told by a person loosing an argument on a similar matter that dark skinned Africans don’t have the genetic edge when it comes to being in the sun. Plus, there are always exceptions to the rule like this person:
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20210491,00.html
I should have added 1. yes, 2. no, 3. yes.
Consider me shocked that we have a 50-50 split on the vote (yes, I realize it’s only 2 votes, but given the leanings on here I thought it would be slanted decidedly in GSR’s direction from the get-go).
I’d answer like Gabo, but with a little more hedging: I can see where many of these programs could eventually outlive their usefulness, but I’m not sure we’re there yet. I know there are plenty of white men who feel sorry for themselves and think everyone else is getting all the breaks. We probably need a good scientific way to be able to tell when affirmative-action type programs have gone far enough and are no longer contributing to equality of opportunity. Anecdotes and hurt feelings don’t cut it though.
“Anecdotes and hurt feelings?” Check out any of the UCs for long periods of time and they had outright quotas on what percentage of each “race” would get in. Look at the case law in California about termination rights. Look at published materials in most of corporate America and you will see written materials about how intentional pro-female gender bias. These aren’t “anecdotes and hurt feelings,” these are real world examples of sexism and racism.
I still defy anyone to provide a working definition of any race!
Geoff, the concept of race can be very simple if you want it to be. Once upon a time there were 3 classifications for all the people of the world. They were Negro, Caucasian, and Mongolian. Negro pretty much covers Africans (other than North Africans). Caucasian covers North Africans, Europeans, and people from India. Mongolians include Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
It was somewhat arbitrary back then but that’s just how it was. Color terms were also added Negro = black, Caucasian = white, Mongolian = yellow. The colors don’t work all that great when it comes to people from India with Caucasian features but have very dark skin.
The concept of race is a strange one indeed. If you ask me, we did NOT elect the first black president. He’s only black if you believe in the one drop rule so to speak. He is just as much white. Same thing with Tiger words. He’s not a black golfer. He is just as much asian as anything else.
GW: By your own definition, Martin Luther King Jr. was an advocate of racism.
Upside down world.
That would be interesting if true – can you cite me to a reliable quote?
The Martin Luther King Research and Education Institute notes that the civil rights leader, “maintained that African-Americans could never be adequately compensated for the “exploitation and humiliation” they had suffered in the past, but he proposed a “Negro Bill of Rights” as a partial remedy for these wrongs. He insisted that African-Americans should be compensated through “a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.”
I thought that you might try and distort things that way. Historian and activist Allan Favish’s careful study of Dr. King’s writings and speeches rejected just such a claim:
“by Allan J. Favish
In “Stolen Dream” (Slate, July 26), Eric Foner writes that Martin Luther King’s “writing and actions make it clear that [he] was a strong supporter of what today would be called ‘affirmative action.’ The phrase itself was not widely used during his lifetime, but King spoke repeatedly of granting blacks special preferences in jobs and education to compensate for past discrimination.”
Foner distorts the historical record by using tiny excerpts of King’s writing. The truth lies in larger excerpts.
In reading these excerpts keep in mind that when King spoke about compensation for “the Negro” he was speaking at a time when so many black individuals alive at the time he spoke did deserve compensation for actual injustices inflicted upon them, as specific individuals, by specific entities, e.g., schools, potential employers, etc.
King was not always as precise in his writing as he should have been, but there are strong indications that when he talked about compensation for “American Negroes” he was still rooted in the notion that a black victim of a racial injustice deserved compensation from the wrongdoer because the victim suffered an injustice, not because the victim was black and that the compensation should come from the wrongdoer, not an innocent party.
The common law never embraced the principle that when A commits a wrong against B, because of B’s skin color, than C deserves a remedy at the expense of D, simply because C shares B’s skin color, where D is an innocent individual who simply shares A’s skin color.
After several pages of discussion in his book, “Why We Can’t Wait,” King does NOT put forward a race-based “compensation” plan. Rather, he puts forward an economic class-based plan. King wrote:
In this way, the nation was compensating the veteran for his time lost, in school or in his career or in business. Such compensatory treatment was approved by the majority of Americans. Certainly the Negro has been deprived . Few people consider the fact that, in addition to being enslaved for two centuries, the Negro was, during all those years, robbed of the wages of his toil. No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law. Such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest.
I am proposing, therefore, that, just as we granted a GI Bill of Rights to war veterans, America launch a broad-based and gigantic Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged, our veterans of the long siege of denial.
Such a bill could adapt almost every concession given to the returning soldier without imposing an undue burden on our economy. A Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged would immediately transform the conditions of Negro life. The most profound alteration would not reside so much in the specific grants as in the basic psychological and motivational transformation of the Negro. I would challenge skeptics to give such a bold new approach a test for the next decade. I contend that the decline in school dropouts, family breakups, crime rates, illegitimacy, swollen relief rolls and other social evils would stagger the imagination. Change in human psychology is normally a slow process, but it is safe to predict that, when a people is ready for change as the Negro has shown himself ready today, the response is bound to be rapid and constructive.
While Negroes form the vast majority of America’s disadvantaged, there are millions of white poor who would also benefit from such a bill. The moral justification for special measures for Negroes is rooted in the robberies inherent in the institution of slavery. Many poor whites, however, were the derivative victims of slavery. As long as labor was cheapened by the involuntary servitude of the black man, the freedom of white labor, especially in the South, was little more than a myth. It was free only to bargain from the depressed base imposed by slavery upon the whole labor market. Nor did this derivative bondage end when formal slavery gave way to the de-facto slavery of discrimination. To this day the white poor also suffer deprivation and the humiliation of poverty if not of color. They are chained by the weight of discrimination, though its badge of degradation does not mark them. It corrupts their lives, frustrates their opportunities and withers their education. In one sense it is more evil for them, because it has confused so many by prejudice that they have supported their own oppressors.
Martin Luther King, Jr., “Why We Can’t Wait,” pages 137-138, published by Mentor (Penguin Books, New York, 1963).”
Additionally, King was interviewed for Playboy’s January, 1965, issue by Alex Haley. In the following excerpt you will notice that King states that his economic development plan is not restricted to blacks, but is for all poor Americans. Despite King’s clarity on this point, notice how Haley keeps phrasing it as a preference plan for “Negroes:”
“PLAYBOY: Along with the other civil rights leaders, you have often proposed a massive program of economic aid, financed by the Federal Government, to improve the lot of the nation’s 20,000,000 Negroes. Just one of the projects you’ve mentioned, however–the HAR-YOU-ACT program to provide jobs for Negro youths–is expected to cost $141,000,000 over the next ten years, and that includes only Harlem. A nationwide program such as you propose would undoubtedly run into the billions.
KING: About 50 billion, actually–which is less than one year of our present defense spending. It is my belief that with the expenditure of this amount, over a ten-year period, a genuine and dramatic transformation could be achieved in the conditions of Negro life in America. I am positive, moreover, that the money spent would be more than amply justified by the benefits that would accrue to the nation through a spectacular decline in school dropouts, family breakups, crime rates, illegitimacy, swollen relief rolls, rioting and other social evils.
PLAYBOY: Do you think it’s realistic to hope that the Government would consider an appropriation of such magnitude other than for national defense?
KING: I certainly do. This country has the resources to solve any problem once that problem is accepted as national policy. An example is aid to Appalachia, which has been made a policy of the Federal Government’s much-touted war on poverty; one billion was proposed for its relief–without making the slightest dent in the defense budget. Another example is the fact that after World War Two, during the years when it became policy to build and maintain the largest military machine the world has ever known, America also took upon itself, through the Marshall Plan and other measures, the financial relief and rehabilitation of millions of European people. If America can afford to underwrite its allies and ex-enemies, it can certainly afford–and has a much greater obligation, as I see it–to do at least as well by its own no-less-needy countrymen.
PLAYBOY: Do you feel it’s fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?
KING: I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages–potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America’s wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro: it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races.
Within common law, we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs, which are regarded as settlements. American Indians are still being paid for land in a settlement manner. Is not two centuries of labor, which helped to build this country, as real a commodity? Many other easily applicable precedents are readily at hand: our child labor laws, social security, unemployment compensation, man-power retraining programs. And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the War–a program which cost far more than a policy of preferential treatment to rehabilitate the traditionally disadvantaged Negro would cost today.
The closest analogy is the GI Bill of Rights. Negro rehabilitation in America would require approximately the same breadth of program–which would not place an undue burden on our economy. Just as was the case with the returning soldier, such a bill for the disadvantaged and impoverished could enable them to buy homes without cash, at lower and easier repayment terns. They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses. They could receive, as did ex-GIs, special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs. Under certain circumstances of physical disability, medical care and long-term financial grants could be made available. And together with these rights, a favorable social climate could be created to encourage the preferential employment of the disadvantaged, as was the case for so many years with veterans. During those years, it might be noted, there was no appreciable resentment of the preferential treatment being given to the special group. America was only compensating her veterans for their time lost from school or from business.
PLAYBOY: If a nationwide program of preferential employment for Negroes were to be adopted, how would you propose to assuage the resentment of whites who already feel that their jobs are being jeopardized by the influx of Negroes resulting from desegregation?
KING: We must develop a Federal program of public works, retraining and jobs for all–so that none, white or black, will have cause to feel threatened. At the present time, thousands of jobs a week are disappearing in the wake of automation and other production efficiency techniques. Black and white, we will all be harmed unless something grand and imaginative is done. The unemployed, poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. Together, they could exert massive pressure on Government to get jobs for all. Together, they could from a grand alliance. Together, they could merge all people for the good of all.
PLAYBOY: If Negroes are also granted preferential treatment in housing, as you propose, how would you allay the alarm with which many white homeowners, fearing property devaluation, greet the arrival of Negroes in hitherto all-white neighborhoods?
KING: We must expunge from our society the myths and half-truths that engender such groundless fears as these. In the first place, there is no truth to the myth that Negroes depreciate property. The fact is that most Negroes are kept out of residential neighborhoods so long that when one of us is finally sold a home, it’s already depreciated. In the second place, we must dispel the negative and harmful atmosphere that has been created by avaricious and unprincipled realtors who engage in “blockbusting.” If we had in America really serious efforts to break down discrimination in housing, and at the same time a concerted program of Government aid to improve housing for Negroes, I think many white people would be surprised at how many Negroes would choose to live among themselves, exactly as Poles and Jews and other ethnic groups do.”
Martin Luther King, Jr., Playboy, pages 74-76 (January 1965).
NOTHING in Dr. King’s writings or speeches supports the conclusion that racism is OK as long as “whites” are disadvantaged to the benefit of “blacks.” EVERYTHING in Dr. King’s words supports the conclusion that we must eliminate racism and bias from our life and treat each other as equals. ALL A FAR CRY FROM YOUR ASSERTION GSM!!
First: Who is GSM?
Second: I’ll take The Martin Luther King Research and Education Institute, the sound scholarship of historian Eric Foner, and indeed the words of Dr. King himself over some hack named Allan Favish.
OK, I meant GSR not GSM. Next, I specifically included the words of Dr. King to diffuse your very argument. Dr. King NEVER used the words affirmative action and never espoused support for such a program. The revisionist history of Mr. Foner should be viewed in the context of the actual words of Dr. King.
Of course Dr. King didn’t utter the words “Affirmative Action.” That phrase wasn’t used back then. That’s a dead end argument. His radical revolution of values is something someone like you wouldn’t get behind anyway so quit trying to hijack and deodorize him.
Eric Foner:
Great Teacher Award – the Society of Columbia Graduates – 1991
Scholar of the Year – New York Council for the Humanities – 1995
John Jay Award for Distinguished Professional Achievement – 2007
Allan Favish?
@ GEOFF W.
First:
1) NO
2) YES
3) NO
Second:
I agree with Vern – I believe there is still a need for certain preferences to correct some of the past misdeeds, but this should be monitored very closely or done on a case by case basis.
For example: Slavery was outlawed in the 1860s. But Covert & Overt Discrimination and Mistreatment still occurred for over another 100 years after that.
Also Women were not allowed to vote until about 90 years ago, and were kept out of certain professions even though they were qualified.
Hiring & Contracts:
When hiring or contracting someone, you typically have an OBJECTIVE and a SUBJECTIVE criteria.
And unfortunately because of the negative type of discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping a CANDIDATE or COMPANY might be kept out of the Hiring or Contracting even though they are QUALIFIED when reviewed OBJECTIVELY, but are NOT hired nor contracted because of a SUBJECTIVE criteria (ie the ORAL INTERVIEWS).
The prejudiced or biased interviewer may consciously or unconsciously rate the individual or company Negatively because of a “warm fuzzy” feeling that they FELT the individual or company was not a right-fit, and whatever else that subjective or vague criteria was.
And because this type of Subjectivity has been happening over several generations and created certain disadvantages, it is these disadvantages that society is attempting to remedy.
It is only relatively recent that I would also hear some clients of the Big 4 (top CPA firms say) that they did NOT want a female manager running the team.
Also, although companies have “AFFINITY” Groups i.e. a focus on hiring and putting qualified women or some other qualified minorities on the corporate management track…there is still a HUGE GAP or lack of Senior Management or Board Members from these diverse communities.
Companies will be best served with Directors that also reflect their customers, shareholders, vendors or employees which in the long run results in greater profits for businesses.
LATINO etc ORGANIZATIONS:
As a person that has led or served on Latino; Hispanic; Mexican-American associations I can tell you that the notion that the organizations are EXCLUSIONARY is FALSE.
The Mission of these organizations is to create opportunities or develop Latino; Hispanic or Mexican-American talent and to HIGHLIGHT and MULTIPLY the POSITIVE contributions…and if others who are NOT of these groups are being helped by this mission, even better.
Also anyone can be a General Member and is welcomed.
Anyone can also be a Board Member and is also welcomed.
And Anyone that is a member or the community, even if not a Latino; Hispanic; or Mexican-American can also enjoy the benefit of the mission of the organizations.
For example, I was the President of ALPFA-OC (april 2007-sept 2009). ALPFA is the premier national organization made up of volunteers with about 14,000 members from the top companies and universities across America. (ALPFA- Assoc of Latino Professionals in Finance & Accounting).
We created student chapters locally at UC-Riverside; UC-Irvine; and Cal Poly Pomona. At one of these universities, most recently the student leadership consisted of a great number of student BOARD members that were NOT Latino.
And because membership is open to all…even non Latino student members pay the $20 annual fee and can qualify to compete for and have received the $1K; or $5k or $10K scholarships and which is decided by a very diverse board.
If the student member is deserving because of NEED AND MERIT then this still goes along with the mission of the organizations because it is about improving THE OVERALL COMMUNITY and because these multicultural and multi-ethnic exchanges will make these members into better community members and better Leaders.
Francisco “Paco” Barragan
My opinions only and not those of any group
Mr. Barragan – First, thanks for your thoughtful and well spoken commentary – I may not agree with all you say, but you say it convincingly and are well spoken.
Second, I applaud that “affinity” groups that you work with are not exclusionary – that is a good start. Why do they need to be race based at all? If the point is to help small business, form a small business assistance league (or whatever name you want to use). In that way you avoid claims of racism. I am afraid that a “Western European Organization” would be shouted down as racist whether or not it was exclusionary – you should apply the same standard of racism to your groups.
I have personally witnessed female corporate executives tell audiences point blank that they will only hire female vendors. This is the way to combat gender inequality? I don’t think so.
I do think that your comments about both the unintentional and intentional application of subjective criteria to quietly discriminate is well taken. When discrimination of this kind occurs either intentionally or unintentionally it is simply wrong. There should be a remedy for these wrongs and we should do everything to correct and educate against the proliferation of those wrongs.
You and I disagree over how to correct these egregious wrongs. I do not think that you “correct” sexism or racism through the application of an unhealthy dose of more racism or sexism.
I also think that you have to be careful about the use of statistics to “prove” racism or sexism. One could correctly reach the conclusion based on the statistics that the NBA was racially baised against those of European ancestry – and you would be completely wrong. A series of unrelated factors create an “on the ground” situation in which the number of “black” NBA players is disproportional to the total population. Similar incorrect conclusions can be reached in a myriad of other similar situations.
@ Geoff W:
Thank you also for your thoughtful words and for your perspective.
You ask:
“Why do they need to be race based at all?”
My Response:
I think a clarification is in order. Latino is NOT a Race. Being Latino is more of an ethnic and cultural identity, similar to a faith-based identify.
LATINOS ARE WHITE, BROWN, BLACK, and ASIAN etc. and are thus INCLUSIVE by its very nature, of any race.
Again similar to a faith-based identity. For example, when someone says they are Christian they are NOT defining this by race because CHRISTIANS are also WHITE, BROWN BLACK, and Asian etc and again are inclusive.
But being Latino is different from a Religious identity, in that LATINOS ARE ALSO CHRISTIAN, JEW, MUSLIM, ETC.
Thus, being Latino is inclusive of both race and religion with out regard to either.
YOU SAY:
“Western European Organization” would be shouted down as racist…you should apply the same standard of racism to your groups.”
My Response:
I think that the majority do NOT have a problem with the various “European” associations i.e. Irish; German, or Italian (e.g. the Knights of Columbus – although some indigenous groups associate the name Columbus with the start of the extermination and enslavement of millions of indigenous people in the Americas).
I think the problem becomes when ANY group, tries to push the notion of racial, religious or cultural or ethnic SUPREMACY because this is a FALSE NOTION, and PLAIN WRONG.
With Respect To (WRT) racial standards, please see my perspective above that Latino is NOT a race, but rather inclusive of conglomeration of races.
WRT a female executive that she will ONLY hire female vendors – the ONLY part (absolutism) makes it wrong.
I am not familiar with sports world, but I am with the military world.
We all know that the US military is the most INTEGRATED institution in America (or the one that integrates its members the fastest when required vs the rest of society), and that Latinos serve in the US Military, especially combat, in number disproportionately greater than our population numbers. But there is something significantly wrong because a small number of Latinos are Officers, and a VERY, VERY, VERY small number are Generals.
Why?
What forces are at play that keep dedicated, patriotic, and very driven bright individuals from reaching the high leadership roles?
And does this create an UNKNOWN “handicap” for America and the global mission of its military?
I suspect that a big factor is the prevailing attitudes or biases of the “Old Guard”.
Case in point, Lt. Gen Sanchez who commanded our forces in Iraq (and one of the third highest Latino Generals) early in his career was told by his Commanding Officer that he had a problem having a Latino assigned to his Staff. Thankfully, this CO changed his attitude because Lt. Gen Sanchez proved whatever were his personal assumptions wrong, and they subsequently became close personal friends.
Where did this attitude of “having a personal problem with an Officer ONLY because he was Latino” arise from?
In my case, I served in the US Marines, but I consciously did NOT pursue the officer track, although I was a top Honor Graduate with consistent high performance and conduct marks and was asked to join HMX-1 (Helicopter Marine Squadron One – the US President’s helicopter squadron) because the Marines different from other branches requires you to serve 6-8 years of ACTIVE duty, after you are commissioned, even if one pays for their own college (which I did). My plans was to pursue a business career through one of the Top CPA firms (which I did).
I suspect that the reason why there are NOT more Latino officers, especially Generals, is PERSONAL. Personal like in my situation, and Personal like in Personal negative biases.
And please everyone, call me Francisco or “Paco”
My opinions only and not that of any group
Again, I may not agree with all you say, but you say it well and in a compelling way. I look forward to continuing a dialogue with you.
So should Affirmative Action be applied to the NBA? Mexicans and Asians are clearly underrepresented. It’s of course because the owners of NBA teams are racist. Same thing happens at the Olympic level which is even more racist. White people shouldn’t win so many gold medals in swimming. Black people shouldn’t win so many medals in running events. Asians shouldn’t win so many medals in gymnastics. We need a big government to socially engineer the natural world to make sure slow and un-athletic people of all races win a gold medal.
Yes, I’m being sarcastic…
Mr. Barragan,
I agree with you that racism still exists in today’s world. However, it will always exist in some form in some manner. The question is whether these programs are still needed to remedy the indisputable racism and sexism that previously existed in our great country. You note that “there is still a need for certain preferences to correct some of the past misdeeds, but this should be monitored very closely or done on a case by case basis.” Sadly, and not surprisingly, the government has proven time and again that it cannot properly compensate those present victims of discrimination. The Pigford settlements prove how fraught with fraud these government compensation programs are. The Civil Rights laws we have on the books provide individuals with an avenue for redress of discrimination they face. In my opinion, this provides the protection that those individuals need, while avoiding the costly and inefficient government settlements, programs. By your (and Vern’s) definition, will there ever come a time when you feel these programs have run their course? Put differently, if people are truly judged based soley on merit, and nothing else, is that really wrong?
@ Newbie:
You say,
“if people are truly judged based solely on merit, and nothing else, is that really wrong?”
My Response:
Of course not, Judging solely on merit is not wrong and should be the ideal.
The problem is HOW TO ENSURE that this is the case, especially when those allocating educational resources, or making hiring or contracting decisions are not doing solely on merit, but are doing so, based on negative personal biases or irrational prejudices.
Merit is developed and earned.
But unequal educational opportunity, and irrational negative prejudices create barriers to judging by merit.
Francisco,
I would submit to you that the way to ensure that people are judged solely on merits is not by requiring quotas or giving preference to someone because of their race or gender. As an example, I would advocate that all applicants to college be given a number and no other identifying marks. They would be judged only on their merit. All of my law school exams were done this way – we were nothing more than a number to the professor. I know this is simplistic and exceptions would need to be addressed (for example, membership in certain organizations can give away race or gender), but at least it would be better than penalizing some who merit something over some who don’t simply because we are “compensating” them for past wrongs (often not even done to them).
@ Newbie:
Your idea for a number on the exams is a great idea.
The CPA exam is done the same way – it removes personal bias.
And for college acceptance it sounds good on the surface; however, if you are looking at merit, how do you account for individual X who may be getting B’s and occasionally A’s vs individual Y who gets all As.
But individual X accomplished his B average while simultaneously facing other challenges or having other experiences that enabled him or her to develop other intangible skills; and which may enrich his or her college experience and that of other students; while Student Y who had the A average did not have the challenges that X faced.
Also, because of our globally interdependent economy, colleges enrich the experience of their students and better prepare them by being not just DIVERSE , but also INCLUSIVE.
I think the preparation for our students and future citizens, begins way EARLIER, and that is why we must give greater priority to a successful early education, with equal opportunity to a sound education FOR ALL, without the biases, and with more involvement from all, including greater involvement by the parents.
Separately, I grew in a small farming community in Livingston, (Merced County – about 6 hours from north here). As a high school freshman, I had taken the highest level math I could. I went to see my ANGLO counselor in planning for my sophomore year. I asked what other math I needed. He said “that is all the math you need!” His expectation of me (because of a negative stereotype) was that that was ALL the math I needed to graduate from HIGH SCHOOL. He never asked me If I had plans for college. And I followed his “advice” and never took more math (until I got to college). Luckily, I applied myself on other high school classes, and took several science classes which forced me to practice my basic algebra and to try to learn it better on my own.
Also, at the start of my Junior year my ANGLO Advanced English Literature teacher, challenged me several times as I was coming into the classroom, as to why I was in that class…and doubted whether I belonged there…asking who I had had for teachers in my Freshman and Sophomore years…what grades I had received (A’s) and that he was going to check. His basis for his challenge…the fact that I was BROWN or Hispanic, and a generalized expectation.
Today, as I was attending the Sylvia Mendez event (of Westminster vs Mendez et al fame), I was talking about education with an older ANGLO engineer whom I admire and respect and some of the biases.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/02/sylvia-mendez-receives-presidential-medal-of-freedom/
He shared how his ANGLO neighbor told him recently, that he “did not see why we needed to educate the Hispanics if they were going to work for his kids.” And he said he was serious. And based on the comment I don’t think he meant work for his kids as CPAs; Attorneys, Engineers or Doctors or in other professions.
Also, based on a LEGAL perspective and some of the CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL trends shared today by professor Chemirinsky??? from UCI, were we seem headed on the wrong direction of making educational opportunity LESS equal, I am afraid that the notion of being able to judge solely on merit is becoming more elusive – but this is and should still be the ideal for all of us!
Francisco “Paco”
My opinions only and not those of any group
Francisco, all you had to say is you don’t believe in a merit based system.
I believe in a Merit system, if we can ensure this is the case.
What I don’t believe in is the illusion of one – “Hey Stop the presses…we got merit”…and ignoring the issue.
Francisco, are you sure you think college entrance should come down to things like standardized tests and GPA’s?
It sounded like maybe you think race should be a factor. Affirmative Action makes it so highly qualified yellow students gets turned away from UCI while under qualified brown and black students get accepted.
Did you know the average SAT scores of black students at UC Berkeley is 800? Yet they turn away white students with near perfect SAT scores.
If I were applying to Berkeley, I’d put down I was black. It wouldn’t be lying because all homo-sapiens came out of Africa 🙂
JT, not only would you not be lying, there is no standard in the laws to determine race so you couldn’t even be accused of violating any law. That is the nonsensical nature of using race as a factor for favoritism.
Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but what right does an employer have on discriminating against certain persons for sex, race, or ‘looks’? For example, at the restaurant Hooters, you won’t find a dude serving tables, nor will you find a “normal” looking girl bringing out wings. Instead, odds are, you’ll get a sweet young thing with huge boobs and shorts shoved up both ends of her crotch.
Seems to me that if there were Hooters restaurants sans black girls working, Jesse Jackson would be organizing the boycott as I write this, but who is sticking up for the 24 year old guy (WHATEVER his color) or the average breasted girls of the world who want to serve some hot wings?
While there is something to be said that this restaurant works better with these “qualified” and “specialized” girls working, who gets to determine this criteria? Is it the courts, the bylaws of a company, or simply the people out there who choose whether or not to raise a stink, like our ‘friend’ Mr. Jackson.
GW, you have the law experience. What do you say? Seems to me that Berkley would be much better off with taking higher-scoring white students than a bunch sub-par scoring black students.
Cableguy1 – I am not an employment lawyer and have no special expertise in that field – however, I believe that there are certain exceptions in the law that allow certain positions to be filled based upon “non-discriminatory” factors. You can go after a certain “look” if that is what is needed for the job. Having said that, in practice this seems to prevent racial “typing” but is not as uniformly enforced on gender.
Thanks GW. It just seems funny that Hooters can go after a special “look” with specific women, but Berkley can’t go after a special ‘look’ of having the most elite, smartest minds in the world. That “look” is what high level, academically challenging Universities SHOULD be all about. I guess there-in-lies the debate of whether or not affirmative action is absolutely rediculous. Not once have I heard a compelling argument FOR affirmative action.
If the numbers of SATs around the 800s for black students are accurate (which I am taking JT’s blog as fact), that scares me. It does however make sense as to why Berkley is pumping out more and more hard-core liberals. Seems the grads are becoming products of their environment. My brother missed out on getting into Stanford, while being a scholar athlete of the year at his high school, having a 4.7 GPA, a 1510 on his SATs (back when it was out of 1600), and a rediculous amount of other ‘resume building stuff’ to make him the ideal candidate for Stanford. His problem, was that he is a white male from a nice neighborhood in Mission Viejo.
That 800 SAT score number was from a 20/20 TV show about Affirmative Action. They had interviewed a white female student who scored a perfect 1600 and was turned away.
Social Engineering is bad news. Whether it’s Chairman Mao, Jim Crow, or Affirmative Action. Let birds be birds and bees be bees.
“That is the nonsensical nature of using race as a factor for favoritism.”
This is a opinion not based on past and present history of institutionalized racism. Only addressed in a meaningful way within the last 50 years.
Some favoritism has been used to make up for the the blatant racism prior to the middle 1960’s. Exclusion was prevalent till the 1960’s. Inclusion has been encouraged for only the last 50 years in the history of the USA and some have a problem with it.
“As with many things, this may come down simply to definitions. I define racism as “any action which discriminates against or singles our for benefit one race over another – all people, regardless of their perceived “race” should be treated equally.” I define sexism as “any action which discriminates against or singles our for benefit one gender over another – all people, regardless of their gender should be treated equally.”
This is an individuals personal definition of racism and sexism in order to justify his argument of non Anglo race favoritism.
From Wikipedia:
The term racism includes both the belief in racial differences, as well as associated discrimination.[1] Although the term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice, violence, dislike, discrimination, or oppression, the term can also have varying and contested definitions. Racialism is a related term, sometimes intended to avoid these negative meanings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups. [7]
The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority or inferiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: “the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others.”
.
Art – not sure that I see any material difference in my definition, the Wikipedia definition and the Merriam-Webster definition.
Geoff,
Your definition of racism is race favoritism. Wikipedia and Merriam-Webstster’s definition is race superiority. You do not see a material difference? I believe you do as you say you are not sure.
Your definition of racism is not the true definition but rather your personal definition in order to fit your agenda’s argument.
Art – with all due respect you are simply wrong and are not reading the definitions in a way that makes sense. There is complete consonance between the three definitions.
As long as the best and brightest students aren’t judged by race, then what would it matter there might be more yellow or white or black or brown or mixed race people admitted to college? If the most recent test scores are indicative of what’s going to happen in the future, our colleges will be mostly filled with yellow people (ie. Asian-Americans). If they study the hardest and perform the best, what’s the problem with that?
It would appear only racist individuals with no regard to merit would have a problem with that.
By the way, I couldn’t find a transcript with the 20/20 program that mentioned black students at Berkeley having an average SAT score of 800. However, here is some good data. Keep in mind though, SAT scores get skewed college by college because of quotas. So the 800 for Berkeley is plausible and likely considering the low graduation rate for black students at that particular campus. I consider that number as close to a fact as possible because I watched the show and trust 20/20 enough to not lie about it.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171
President George W Bush was a solid “c” student at Princeton, possibly no better than the Blacks with SAT scores of 800 at Berkeley that JT is concerned about.
The Republican Party choose him over more educationally qualified candidates. Maybe the GOP thought he had some special qualities aside from school grades and SAT scores that made him ideal for the Presidency.
Possibly President W. Bush received some favoritism in attending Princeton……..do you think!!!!!!
In spite of this President W. Bush was our past two term President, the leader of the free world with a “c” average University education.
I would venture to speculate that this example is true for the bast majority of our elected Anglo officials. Where is the favoritism debate here.
Hm, good argument, too bad you had to use such a weak example! 🙂
I agree with Vern. Since when have people ever elected someone with the best grades? Ghandi probably did pretty good in school. However, I’d vote for him over a rival that might have done better. And no, race wouldn’t be a factor (at least not for me). I’d just vote for him because he was one of the most awesome leaders of all time.
GWB is a good example…for this discussion -see:
“How affirmative action helped George W.”
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/
Wow, George W. did pretty decent on his SAT (1206). The fact he could afford the tuition was the most important factor in W’s case. That link is not a good example of affirmative action in higher education for today’s students.
The first federal affirmative action laws were more about employment. It wasn’t until later that schools took it upon themselves to allow race to be a factor for admission. If anything, what universities do is anti-affirmative action. Affirmative action laws say jobs should be open to anyone regardless of race. That’s not what universities are doing!
See Legacy Preferences discussion:
http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/affirmative-action-for-the-rich-legacy-preferences-in-college-admissions/Legacy_brief.pdf
Francisco, I would have to say I oppose legacy status as well as affirmative action programs that promote under qualified individuals.
Just because Usain Bolt set the 100m world record and won a gold medal, doesn’t mean his children are entitled to a world record and gold medal. That’s how college should be as well.
It seems like according to your ideology though, Usain Bolt should not be allowed into the stadium at all because non-black, short, old, un-athletic, and slow people are underrepresented?
What’s wrong with the smartest medical students going to the best medical schools? Don’t you go to the best doctor available regardless of race? As long as they speak English and are a good doctor, I am a happy camper!
I have just as much problem with legacy preferences as I do for racial or gender preferences. Although I probably could have taken advantage of such preferences I never did. I constantly run into those from “connected” families that just think that the world should be handed to them. By the way, those “connected families” run the racial gamut.
art lomeli, I’m a big fan of union leader Cesar Chavez because he cared about American farm workers, the environment, was a vegetarian, and big fan of Ghandi. I could care less about his grades. Can you name one person that wanted him to be their leader, other than yourself, based on his grades?
Why do you have the racist belief that only Anglo officials do poorly in school?
Was Felipe Calderon a good student? What about Angela Merkel? Or maybe Dmitri Medvedev? None of them are Anglo, does that mean they all got straight A’s?
JT,
” Can you name one person that wanted him to be their leader, other than yourself, based on his grades?”
I never said this.
“Why do you have the racist belief that only Anglo officials do poorly in school?”
I never said this.
“Was Felipe Calderon a good student? What about Angela Merkel? Or maybe Dmitri Medvedev? None of them are Anglo, does that mean they all got straight A’s?”
I do not know this answer, maybe you can find it out and let us know.
“Wow, George W. did pretty decent on his SAT (1206).”
Nonetheless he was a “c” student. So a high SAT is not a guarantee of academic performance in this case and in many others.
“What’s wrong with the smartest medical students going to the best medical schools?”
So, according to you every position should be filled exclussively based on grades.
“The first federal affirmative action laws were more about employment. It wasn’t until later that schools took it upon themselves to allow race to be a factor for admission.”
Schools did not take it upon themselves. They were mandated. See below.
From Wikipedia:
Affirmative action was first established in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961 and required government contractors to “not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin” as well as to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin”.[9] This executive order was superseded by Executive Order 11246, which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965 and affirmed the Federal Government’s commitment “to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency”.[1] It is notable that affirmative action was not extended to women until Executive Order 11375 amended Executive Order 11246 on October 13, 1967, expanding the definition to include “sex.”
As it currently stands, affirmative action through Executive Order 11246 applies to “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” In the U.S., affirmative action’s original purpose was to pressure institutions( including institutions of higher education) into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4]
.
art lomeli, didn’t you say “In spite of this President W. Bush was our past two term President, the leader of the free world with a “c” average University education. I would venture to speculate that this example is true for the bast majority of our elected Anglo officials. Where is the favoritism debate here”?
It sure seemed to me like you are trying to say Anglo (and only Anglo) officials do poorly in school.
As far as Executive Order 11246 goes, you are right. I didn’t realize it covered higher education. However, how does “not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin” translate to “let’s turn away white and yellow students because they perform so well and accept black students that don’t perform as well”?
If students are being judged purely on performance, what issue do you have with colleges being filled with a slightly disproportionate number of white and yellow students? It’s only because they were the best and brightest. If they were all black, who cares right? Does the racial makeup of the NBA alarm you as well?
Sorry, just not a big fan of what I think is an entirely racist law (even if at one point in time it had good intentions).
“It sure seemed to me like you are trying to say Anglo (and only Anglo) officials do poorly in school.
I said bast majority. it is not all. I did not say “only”. You interpret what you want to. I was not trying to say anything. I say exactly what I want to say.
“However, how does “not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin” translate to “let’s turn away white and yellow students because they perform so well and accept black students that don’t perform as well”?”
Again, you interpret what you want to interpret to fit your belief and agenda.
In the U.S., affirmative action’s original purpose was to pressure institutions( including institutions of higher education) into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“If students are being judged purely on performance, what issue do you have with colleges being filled with a slightly disproportionate number of white and yellow students? It’s only because they were the best and brightest. If they were all black, who cares right? Does the racial makeup of the NBA alarm you as well?”
Again,
affirmative action’s original purpose was to pressure institutions( including institutions of higher education) into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In the NBA there has been no institutionalized effort to eliminate white players based on racism. that placed them at a disadvantage.
50 years ago blacks were banned fro sports including baseball, football and basketball. DOES THIS ALARM YOU???
IT IS NOT A RACIST LAW. YOU ARGUE IT IN THIS MANNER FOR OTHER REASONS I BELIEVE.
art lomeli, If you want to address politicians as a whole, then just use that term by itself. If I were to say Hispanic politicians are stupid. Most people would think I am singling them even though it could be argued that all politicians are stupid.
It doesn’t alarm me that blacks couldn’t play major league baseball until after 1946 because that’s just how society evolved. We only think it’s wrong in our present time and space. The same thing goes for slavery. We only think it’s wrong because now. Back in colonial times, slavery was only looked down upon as much as cigarette smokers are today. We should be thankful that we know better and that we don’t make the same mistakes with civil rights.
What affirmative action does at the university level is fight past racism with current and future racism instead of having merit as the top priority.
You believe in racist laws, I don’t. From my perspective, I think racist laws were wrong back then, I think they are wrong today. It’s only in a merit based system that you don’t have racism. Olympic athletes win medals, not because of the color of their skin, but because of the merit of their performance. It’s unfortunate you don’t believe in the same thing for our schools.
Well put JT.
JT,
“art lomeli, If you want to address politicians as a whole, then just use that term by itself. If I were to say Hispanic politicians are stupid. Most people would think I am singling them even though it could be argued that all politicians are stupid.’
Your argument on Favoritism and associated definition of racism is geared at non Anglos. You are not fooling anyone. I was giving examples of Anglo favoritism. You are silly.
It alarms me to know that you do not understand the harm in the evolution…….. educationally culturally and in opportunity Blacks suffered due to racism.
You casually pass through slavery and discrimination based on racism as past wrongs with convenient disregard for what long term damages this produces on them and society.
During slavery , it was common to kill Black salves perceived as smart by the slave owners. For survival reasons a culture was produced and intelligence eliminated through systematic murder.
DOES THIS ALARM YOU!
I do not believe in your definition of racism as does Webster’s dictionary and others. You have a agenda and and nothing else. Geofff Willis believes as you.
I won’t speak for JT, but yes, I have an agenda – to eliminate all racism and sexism of any kind. By the way, as with many of your other arguments, you have conveniently and intentionally ommited a critical part of the dictionary definition of racism:
“Definition of RACISM
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination ”
Merriam Webster. Not sure I ever understood your point on this anyway, but I find it funny that you were not even intellectually honest about what the dictionary said. You have called me an “Anglo” can you please tell me what that means? I would also like to know how you define “Blacks.”
What is your point in the definition?
“2: racial prejudice or discrimination ” is this it?
The definition is racial prejudice or discrimination based on 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
“I won’t speak for JT, but yes, I have an agenda – to eliminate all racism and sexism of any kind. ”
Your argument is entirely about racism-favoritism relative to opportunities to minorities and women. You have not argued -your post thread against all racism – race superiority. You mention it in passing, the subject of your thread is your definition.
I believe you are intellectually dishonest for presenting your definition of racism to fit your agenda …and it is not about eliminating all racism, just my opinion.
I never called you “Anglo”. I do not know your racial/ethnic background and I do not care..
art lomeli,
Why not fight for a merit based system that doesn’t factor in race? if you get the SAT scores, the grades, the tuition money, etc. What does it matter?
I felt you used the term Anglo politicians in a previous post to single them out. I did not think you were referring to me.
We will always have some racism but a lot of that is ok. When you see a skin doctor and your skin is super white, the doctor is going to recommend sunscreen. If you are super black, the doctor probably won’t worry so much as far as sun exposure goes. I think that’s fair and yes, it makes black people in that respect superior. However, as a whole, everyone is as important as everyone else. The differences between the races doesn’t amount to a whole lot. Even if it did, a merit based system is still the fairest way to proceed. If in theory, if white people had an average SAT score of 400, and yellow people had an average SAT score of 1500, wouldn’t it be fair that more yellow people were in college?
JT,
“We will always have some racism but a lot of that is ok. When you see a skin doctor and your skin is super white, the doctor is going to recommend sunscreen. If you are super black, the doctor probably won’t worry so much as far as sun exposure goes. I think that’s fair and yes, it makes black people in that respect superior. ”
This is not racism!!!!!.These types of arguments are frightening to read.
“Why not fight for a merit based system that doesn’t factor in race? if you get the SAT scores, the grades, the tuition money, etc. What does it matter?
“”We will always have some racism but a lot of that is ok.”
You contradict yourself in your last two statements above.
“Why not fight for a merit based system that doesn’t factor in race? if you get the SAT scores, the grades, the tuition money, etc. What does it matter?”
It matters because as you say we will always have racism and a handicap has been produced due to institutionalized racism in education and employment till the civil rights act started the process of correcting this.
Segregation was the norm based on racism till the 60’s. Minorities and women were second hand citizens. There were laws in Santa Ana and other Orange County cities that prohibited Mexicans owning homes but in only certain sections. The Lacy,,Delhi and Logan neighborhoods in Santa Ana . El Modena and Cypress neighborhoods in Orange……..systematic economic oppression producing disadvantages in ability to compete.
” The differences between the races doesn’t amount to a whole lot. Even if it did, a merit based system is still the fairest way to proceed. If in theory, if white people had an average SAT score of 400, and yellow people had an average SAT score of 1500, wouldn’t it be fair that more yellow people were in college?”
Individual merit is based on a diverse set of criteria like,……..personal,accomplishments,how the accomplishments were obtained ,obstacles in life, overcoming obstacle in life,personal character,compassion for your fellow man and racial,ethnic,gender,and religious history of oppression.
Universities use the above criteria and other types that make up the individual merit they consider in order to select a student, including SAT scores and grades.
In your argument of Universities, they do not use your and Geoff’ Willis’s definition of Racism…racial prejudice or discrimination.
Dictionary.com Free Toolbar
Define Prejudice Instantly. Faster Page Loads With Fewer Ads.
Sponsored ResultsDictionary.com
prej·u·dice /ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ Show Spelled
[prej-uh-dis] Show IPA
noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
–verb (used with object)
6. to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.
—Idiom
7. without prejudice, Law . without dismissing, damaging, or otherwise affecting a legal interest or demand.
Use prejudice in a Sentence
See images of prejudice
World English Dictionary
discrimination (dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃən)
— n
1. unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice
2. subtle appreciation in matters of taste
3. the ability to see fine distinctions and differences
4. electronics the selection of a signal having a particular frequency, amplitude, phase, etc, effected by the elimination of other signals by means of a discriminator
.
art lomeli,
I’ll just keep this post simple. I would hope my kids aren’t discriminated against and they get their degrees based on merit (regardless of their race). Fighting for a merit based system for future generations of homo-sapiens is something that allows me to sleep good at night.
I’ll let you fight for discrimination and to keep the most qualified students out of our universities. How you can feel good about that is beyond me. I can’t imagine the students who get into college solely because of their race can feel good about themselves either. They will always know it wasn’t because of their performance.
JT,
” I can’t imagine the students who get into college solely because of their race can feel good about themselves either. They will always know it wasn’t because of their performance.”
Where from anything I or others have written on this blog thread say the above???? They get in because of their performance. Race is but one of many factors used by University admissions committees. You are conveniently ignorant on the admissions process.
“I’ll let you fight for discrimination and to keep the most qualified students out of our universities.”
Another ignorant statement. Students are the most qualified based on a set of diverse criteria. You focus on SAT and grades which are only but two factors used in the admissions process.
I understand this is your message to carry on your agenda against opportunity for minorities relative to education and economics.
.
art lomeli, You admit race should be a factor in determining admission to colleges and universities. That pretty much says it all. That is a racist belief. You may justify it for various reasons, but it’s racism no doubt about it.
I dream of a society where race isn’t a factor. Where the only thing that matters is who gets the job done best.
“I dream of a society…”
See, there’s the rub, JT. You and I and Art L all dream of such a society. The argument is whether we have reached that goal yet, where the historically disadvantaged minorities can actually get a fair shake without their minority status being taken into account. We’re no doubt a lot closer to that goal than we were 30 or 40 years ago. Folks of goodwill like you and Doc Lomeli can argue about what point we get there, but neither of you are being “racist.”
Nice sum up Vern, and though I fear creating bad precedent, I agree with all you say.
The one argument made by Mr. Lomeli that I can’t get past is “Students are the most qualified based on a set of diverse criteria. You focus on SAT and grades which are only but two factors used in the admissions process.” I would be willing to accept this if we could point to other merit based criteria such as the essay or outside activities but it seems like Mr. Lomeli is using “race” as a crtieria in and of itself. I defy him to define what the different races are.
Geoff,
” I would be willing to accept this if we could point to other merit based criteria such as the essay or outside activities but it seems like Mr. Lomeli is using “race” as a criteria in and of itself. I defy him to define what the different races are”
No I’m not. Read my previous posts and the above quote. I list other criteria and state that race is but 1 of many factors University Admissions committees use to make the decision of who they consider as the most qualified. By definition those the University selects t are the most qualified according to their criteria.
I am not arguing race definition. JT argues as you do that in University Admission, race is the only factor considered when selecting those that check the race box in the application that is other than Anglo. Both of you are misinformed or disregard the facts.
Vern.I believe JT has no objective real idea of what racism is. In the selection process the University those not select one over the other thinking that when selecting a non Anglo that the non Anglo id genetically superior over the other or with associated prejudice.
I do not believe JT is racist as he claims I am. I give him the benefit of the doubt and only perceive him as ignorant.
.
I know JT, he’s a real nice guy, he just has sort of a chip on his shoulder about this issue. Something to do with an old girlfriend of his that didn’t get into one of the UC’s, which he says was because she was Asian. Did you want to share that story, JT?
Art – why should race be ANY factor? Is there anything in the law stopping me from classifying myself as black, eskimo, asian or hispanic? As soon as we use race as a factor in making a decision, having we inserted racism into the process?
(To make absolutely clear – I VIEW MY QUESTIONS AS PURELY RHETORICAL)
Yep, I had a girlfriend from Japan for four years. She had to pay out of state tuition at a community college because she did not come here illegally. The funny thing is that she once got stopped near the border because cops thought she was an illegal immigrant. I still laugh at that one. However, at the time, she was really upset. She got really good grades but didn’t make it into UCI. I don’t think there was an official statement that said it was because there were too many Asians but she was suspicious. There is a lot more evidence today that UCI does that because of affirmative action. She left America somewhat upset because she followed all of the laws while students that did not follow the law were financially rewarded.
My point is, why should the government via affirmative action be racist against an innocent student? What did I do, or what did my ex girlfriend do to deserve such treatment?
art lomeli, you are probably from a different generation. I didn’t grow up in a family that had a negative view of other races. In fact, just the opposite. It’s the reason I got my degree in Anthropology. I love studying different cultures and traveling the world.
By the way, I don’t think I said race is the only factor. However, there are plenty of documented cases of highly qualified white students being turned away from Berkeley in favor of under qualified black students.
JT
Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:11 AM
“By the way, I don’t think I said race is the only factor. However, there are plenty of documented cases of highly qualified white students being turned away from Berkeley in favor of under qualified black students.”
JT
Posted February 27, 2011 at 1:23 AM
“I can’t imagine the students who get into college solely because of their race can feel good about themselves either. They will always know it wasn’t because of their performance”
So you did say it. Under Qualified according to your criteria and anger relative to the issue with your past girlfriend.
Not under qualified according to University criteria.
“My point is, why should the government via affirmative action be racist against an innocent student?”
Your point is based on ignorance. Universities do not use racism in their selection process.
“art lomeli, you are probably from a different generation. I didn’t grow up in a family that had a negative view of other races.”
I do not understand this statement. What are you trying to say here????
Geoff,
Look up the definition of racism again. Universities use race as one factor in the admissions criteria. when a selection is made it is not made by racism as defined in any dictionary you wish to cite.
You assertion-opinion is not rhetorical. Only in your mind.