Why do you think some people are so eager to cast you as a beneficiary of affirmative action?Read the whole thing. The more I read and learn about this man, the more respect I have for him.
That was the creation of the politicians, the people with a lot of mouth and nothing to say and your industry. They had a story and everything had to fit into their story. It discounts other people's achievements. Ask Ted how many all-nighters he pulled. It discounts those. It's so discouraging to see the fraudulent renditions of very complicated and different lives of people who were struggling in a new world for them. Everything becomes affirmative action. There wasn't some grand plan. I just showed up.
Showing posts with label Race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Race. Show all posts
Monday, March 05, 2007
The College Years of Justice Thomas
An extraordinary interview in Business Week with Justice Thomas, focusing on his college years, his activities, the truth behind the meme that he himself is a product of affirmative action, and more. A sample:
Friday, February 09, 2007
Great FedSoc Events Next Week
One on the death penalty, another on race - should be extremely interesting if you can make it! Note: I wasn't clear before - the two events advertized below are at Seattle University. Also, don't forget about the lawyer's chapter discussion this Wednesday on money in judicial elections with none other than Justice Sanders.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Nifong The Victim
"He's devastated. It's very upsetting to be attacked. It's like he's public enemy No. 1," said David Freedman, Nifong's attorney.Awwww... It's so saaaaad. Well gosh, Mr. Nifong. Maybe you should have thought of that before you violated ethics, discovery, and media communications rules in order to railroad some kids in a cynical race-baiting political maneuver. At least now he knows how the victims of his prosecutorial abuse felt. Thank God they had the means to fight back, both in the media and in the courtroom.
If there's real justice in the world, Nifong won't just get disbarred - he'll live forever in infamy in every Professional Responsibility casebook in every law school in the country. I wouldn't count on it, though - then law professors might have to admit that sometimes whites can be victims of racial politics, too.
I never understood why this case was anything more than a blip on the national news radar, until Publius pointed it out. One of the liberal articles of faith is that rich white people run around and oppress poor black victims whenever they can, especially in the South. Because actual examples of this are increasingly hard to find, when a story that reinforces that mode of belief comes along, the liberal MSM will blow it up into ridiculous proportions. And because it's what they expect to see in the world, there's no need for healthy skepticism, fact checking, balance, or any other journalistic skill they were supposedly taught. Rich white southern boys rape poor black
Nifong, of course, counted on this MSM complicity, and rode it all the way to re-election. Nothing like a little race baiting to score a few votes - so what if innocent people are flayed because of the color of their skin!
At this point, no one is defending Nifong, except apparently, his attorney helped out by the above linked ABC softball piece. Well, that and a bunch of isolated college professors who aren't about to let the truth get in the way of their social views. But it's important to remember that Nifong was only exposed, despite the best efforts of his abettors in the media and academia who want to shape our perception of the world as racist, because they accidentally picked on victims with the means - and evidence - to defend themselves. As long as we as a society continue to give race baiters a pass so long as they're the right color, the Duke lacrosse players won't be the last victims of this kind of abuse.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
The Court Tackles Racism Diversity
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."
Yes, it is. And the Court is once again faced with the question of just how sordid it is today as it decides whether a "racial tiebreaker" is Constitutional in determining which high school Seattle students should attend.
It seems to me to be difficult to justify as a "compelling state interest" the idea that a 60-40 racial makeup will provide a significantly different educational experience than 70-30, or even 80-20. And that's really all the school district has. (It's also worth wondering, although less legally germane, why Seattle Schools are spending all this time, money, and effort on minor racial redistribution when the schools themselves are failing so miserably and completely. Do they seriously think this racial window dressing will raise test scores or inprove math skills? Of course, when "diversity" is your unquestioned religious dogma, the real motivations behind the school district's proposed policies become more clear...)
But what's really at stake is the idea of racial preferences, and how hostile the Roberts Court will be towards them. Likely swing voter Justice Kennedy said, "We're not writing just on a very fact-specific issue." (So much for case and controversy limits, eh?) The outcome will determine if we're still willing to be held hostage by fear of being called "racists" as a society by people who ignore the harm racial quotas and preferences have caused, ignore the very real progress we've made as a country on issues of race, and if we're going to finally repudiate the liberal Cult of Victimhood that has been used throughout the past century to justify socialism.
Here's hoping we ignore the likes of Senator Kennedy, accept that segregated lunch counters aren't coming back, and finally recognize that the Prophets of Diversity for its own sake is antithetical to the idea of a color blind Constitution.
- Chief Justice John Roberts, LULAC v. Perry, (concurring)
Yes, it is. And the Court is once again faced with the question of just how sordid it is today as it decides whether a "racial tiebreaker" is Constitutional in determining which high school Seattle students should attend.
It seems to me to be difficult to justify as a "compelling state interest" the idea that a 60-40 racial makeup will provide a significantly different educational experience than 70-30, or even 80-20. And that's really all the school district has. (It's also worth wondering, although less legally germane, why Seattle Schools are spending all this time, money, and effort on minor racial redistribution when the schools themselves are failing so miserably and completely. Do they seriously think this racial window dressing will raise test scores or inprove math skills? Of course, when "diversity" is your unquestioned religious dogma, the real motivations behind the school district's proposed policies become more clear...)
But what's really at stake is the idea of racial preferences, and how hostile the Roberts Court will be towards them. Likely swing voter Justice Kennedy said, "We're not writing just on a very fact-specific issue." (So much for case and controversy limits, eh?) The outcome will determine if we're still willing to be held hostage by fear of being called "racists" as a society by people who ignore the harm racial quotas and preferences have caused, ignore the very real progress we've made as a country on issues of race, and if we're going to finally repudiate the liberal Cult of Victimhood that has been used throughout the past century to justify socialism.
Here's hoping we ignore the likes of Senator Kennedy, accept that segregated lunch counters aren't coming back, and finally recognize that the Prophets of Diversity for its own sake is antithetical to the idea of a color blind Constitution.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
The People of Michigan Overturn Grutter
A victory against racism in Michigan yesterday. The people repudiated Grutter v. Bollinger, eliminating racial preferences in state hiring practices. Even better, this decision came as a political, not judicial, mandate. Californian minorities have benefited from their similar decision.
Interesting, Jennifer Gratz, plaintiff in Grutter's sister case Gratz v. Bollinger, was the driving force behind the initiative.
Yesterday was a lot of things, but it was NOT a mandate for liberalism.
Interesting, Jennifer Gratz, plaintiff in Grutter's sister case Gratz v. Bollinger, was the driving force behind the initiative.
Yesterday was a lot of things, but it was NOT a mandate for liberalism.
Friday, August 11, 2006
What the ABA Talks About
The American Bar Association just finished up its conference in Honolulu. Thanks to the Federalist Society keeping tabs on them and keeping its membership updated, here's a sample of what the conversation is:
So. A "cultural defense." Does that mean that white culture is different than black culture, and that we should treat black people differently in court than whites? What was the civil rights struggle all about anyway?
This kind of talk is profoundly anti-American. (Yeah, I said it.) We are a nation of laws, not of people. Lady justice is blind to color and "culture," and rightfully so. America is about taking personal responsibility for our actions, and about being treated equally under the law. We are an exceptional nation, and our "Anglo-American" culture, which respects property rights and personal liberty, is demonstrably supreme over any other in the world.
The American culture, economy, and way of life has produced the most successful and prosperous nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth. People from all over the world come to this country because they have rejected their culture and have chosen to become a part of ours. Why on earth would we want to backslide and make our laws conform with whatever defective cultures people have expended so much energy to escape?
Imagine if Professor Chiu were to get her way. Does that mean domestic violence among certain cultures should be excused? What if a Muslim killed a Jew? What counts as "black culture?" Should we allow slavery? Polygamy? Cannibalism? Bribery? Forced female circumcision of teenage girls? Arranged marriages of 12 year olds? (So much for international feminism...) I doubt that any Chinese immigrant, despite their Communist upbringing, respects property rights so little that they wouldn't think it was a big deal if someone broke into their home.
The ABA will always lean left. Most people go to law school because they want to save the world using government, and are thus big believers in big government. Fair enough. But this kind of thing (and there was plenty more ridiculousness) is beyond the pale. Until this stupidity is rejected, the ABA will never get one thin dime of mine.
By the way, one of the benefits of the $5 per year Federalist Society membership is that they have a reporter at all such ABA events, and E-mail out updates to the membership. (If anyone missed the last round and wants them forwarded, just shoot me an E-mail.) They also publish the ABA Watch, which keeps you apprised of what lobbying efforts they're spending the dues they're asking you for on.
Professor Elaine Chiu of St. John's School of Law discussed "The Criminal Law in an Age of Multiculturalism." Chiu bemoaned that, right after 9/11, race relations dropped into the "dark ages" due in part to an "unassailable public support" for racial profiling and deportation. This was due to an increased commitment toward national security at the expense of "equality, respect, and dignity." However, changing demographics will lead to an "age of multiculturalism" that will in turn lead to other, new questions about the substantive criminal law. According to Chiu, "As awful as selective enforcement and racial profiling are, their effects are compounded if individuals are prosecuted on the basis of laws that are themselves inherently unequal and unjust."
Chiu describes current criminal law as "assimilationist," as it "expresses the values and norms of the dominant Anglo-American culture to the exclusion of other minority cultures." Although some may protest this characterization, "their failure to appreciate the presence of culture in our penal codes is the result of their moral absolutism and legal centralism." An example of this phenomenon is the use of deadly force to defend a home from a burglar. Chiu describes this as an "alarming trend of valuing self-defense over retreat." Not all cultures, she emphasized, value property over life. Property rights are a very Anglo-American concept. This "assimilationist" approach leads to outdated criminal laws out of step with the American populace. To have criminal laws (based on British laws) that reflect the beliefs of only half of the American populace is "preposterous." A second consequence is the "loss of justice and equality for defendants of minority descent." Ultimately, "assimilationism is a recipe for disaster."
Instead, Chiu advocates a combined pluralistic/individualistic approach to criminal law. Minorities would be able to receive a hearing for their side of the case. Chiu maintains that a "respect for a defendant's culture is respect for the defendant itself." She supports a "cultural defense." Minorities must demonstrate that they are "deadly serious in their cultural commitments...The majority's refusal even to consider minority practices as an alternative is intolerable."
So. A "cultural defense." Does that mean that white culture is different than black culture, and that we should treat black people differently in court than whites? What was the civil rights struggle all about anyway?
This kind of talk is profoundly anti-American. (Yeah, I said it.) We are a nation of laws, not of people. Lady justice is blind to color and "culture," and rightfully so. America is about taking personal responsibility for our actions, and about being treated equally under the law. We are an exceptional nation, and our "Anglo-American" culture, which respects property rights and personal liberty, is demonstrably supreme over any other in the world.
The American culture, economy, and way of life has produced the most successful and prosperous nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth. People from all over the world come to this country because they have rejected their culture and have chosen to become a part of ours. Why on earth would we want to backslide and make our laws conform with whatever defective cultures people have expended so much energy to escape?
Imagine if Professor Chiu were to get her way. Does that mean domestic violence among certain cultures should be excused? What if a Muslim killed a Jew? What counts as "black culture?" Should we allow slavery? Polygamy? Cannibalism? Bribery? Forced female circumcision of teenage girls? Arranged marriages of 12 year olds? (So much for international feminism...) I doubt that any Chinese immigrant, despite their Communist upbringing, respects property rights so little that they wouldn't think it was a big deal if someone broke into their home.
The ABA will always lean left. Most people go to law school because they want to save the world using government, and are thus big believers in big government. Fair enough. But this kind of thing (and there was plenty more ridiculousness) is beyond the pale. Until this stupidity is rejected, the ABA will never get one thin dime of mine.
By the way, one of the benefits of the $5 per year Federalist Society membership is that they have a reporter at all such ABA events, and E-mail out updates to the membership. (If anyone missed the last round and wants them forwarded, just shoot me an E-mail.) They also publish the ABA Watch, which keeps you apprised of what lobbying efforts they're spending the dues they're asking you for on.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
"Apologies"
Well, Representative McKinney issued what she's calling an "apology" today. It's not. And it's a good example of what politicians (and others) do when they screwed up, are too proud to admit it, but need to be politically expedient. You can tell a lot about someone's character by the way they apologize for something. Here's McKinney's:
So she once again expresses "regret." She did that before, in between her many dealt hands of race cards. OK. But my favorite is this phrase: "There should not have been any physical contact in this incident." I love it. It's not, "I shouldn't have hit the cop who was just doing his job." It was "I shouldn't have hit him, but he's equally if not more culpable because he ALSO made physical contact." Blaming the victim, even in part, is NOT an apology.
Then she refers to it as a "misunderstanding". It's not a misunderstanding. The cop understood that someone he didn't recognize and didn't have the right ID was rushing his checkpoint, and didn't stop when asked. He did his job, and she hit him. And then she called him a racist. And SHE was the only one who "escalated" anything. But again she used the passive voice, attempting to paint it as an unfortunate event over which she had no control. "There happened to be an escalation. To the extent that I don't like seeing that kind of thing, I'm sorry it happened." And the statement that she "has always supported law enforcement" is simply untrue. When you call the whole system of law enforcement racist, misogynistic practicers of racial profiling, that's not a show of support. (It makes me wonder if she also "supports our troops." If this is how she defines "support," it suddenly all makes sense.)
When politicians apologize, especially when they say stupid, racist, or offensive things, they always say, "I apologize if anyone was offended." Again, the underlying statement is, "I didn't do anything wrong. If you happen to be offended, I'm sorry that such a circumstance, which I am not responsible for, just happened to occur." They also really like to quickly add a "but." There's no such thing as a sincere apology with a "but" tacked on to it. "I'm sorry I wasn't completely forthright about an 'inappropriate relationship,' but none of this would have happened if it wasn't for Ken Starr. It's all his fault! And now that I've said I'm sorry, I can no longer be judged for this." What rubbish. Anyone who thinks this is sincere, well, I have some ocean view property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
I hope the indictment goes forward, and I honestly hope she spends some time in jail.
The only believable apology would be this:
I won't hold my breath.
"I come before this body to personally express, again, my sincere regret about the encounter with the Capitol Hill Police. I appreciate my colleagues who are standing with me, who love this institution and who love this country. There should not have been any physical contact in this incident. I have always supported law enforcement, and will be voting for H. Res. 756 expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the professionalism and dedication of the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police. I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation. And I apologize."
So she once again expresses "regret." She did that before, in between her many dealt hands of race cards. OK. But my favorite is this phrase: "There should not have been any physical contact in this incident." I love it. It's not, "I shouldn't have hit the cop who was just doing his job." It was "I shouldn't have hit him, but he's equally if not more culpable because he ALSO made physical contact." Blaming the victim, even in part, is NOT an apology.
Then she refers to it as a "misunderstanding". It's not a misunderstanding. The cop understood that someone he didn't recognize and didn't have the right ID was rushing his checkpoint, and didn't stop when asked. He did his job, and she hit him. And then she called him a racist. And SHE was the only one who "escalated" anything. But again she used the passive voice, attempting to paint it as an unfortunate event over which she had no control. "There happened to be an escalation. To the extent that I don't like seeing that kind of thing, I'm sorry it happened." And the statement that she "has always supported law enforcement" is simply untrue. When you call the whole system of law enforcement racist, misogynistic practicers of racial profiling, that's not a show of support. (It makes me wonder if she also "supports our troops." If this is how she defines "support," it suddenly all makes sense.)
When politicians apologize, especially when they say stupid, racist, or offensive things, they always say, "I apologize if anyone was offended." Again, the underlying statement is, "I didn't do anything wrong. If you happen to be offended, I'm sorry that such a circumstance, which I am not responsible for, just happened to occur." They also really like to quickly add a "but." There's no such thing as a sincere apology with a "but" tacked on to it. "I'm sorry I wasn't completely forthright about an 'inappropriate relationship,' but none of this would have happened if it wasn't for Ken Starr. It's all his fault! And now that I've said I'm sorry, I can no longer be judged for this." What rubbish. Anyone who thinks this is sincere, well, I have some ocean view property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
I hope the indictment goes forward, and I honestly hope she spends some time in jail.
The only believable apology would be this:
"I apologize for hitting the officer. He was doing exactly the right thing, and good for him for stopping me. I was wrong to ignore him, and wrong to hit him. But I am most ashamed of my actions afterwards. I acted like a coward, and made accusations of racism that are unfounded and unfair. I did this to protect myself politically. I am ashamed of myself. I've personally apologized to the officer. Also, I apologize for hiring a bodyguard, which was another political stunt, and even more for hiring one who would threaten a member of the news media. I am no longer worthy to hold this seat or to represent honorable people, and so today I am resigning from my seat. My presence harms America's perceptions of black leadership in this country, and so I can only hope my actions will in some way remedy this view. Thank you."
I won't hold my breath.
Monday, April 03, 2006
A Matter of Character
I'm glad that the Capitol Police are seeking an indictment of Representative McKinney for her assault on one of their officers the other day.
How selfish! How cowardly! I don't care how much racial profiling she thinks exists in this country - she messed up, and messed up big time. It would only have taken her a few seconds to show her identification. But instead, HER time was so valuable that she was entitled to run a security checkpoint. She not wearing proper identification. She ignored the repeated warnings to stop. She could have prevented the confrontation at any time. And then she was so incensed that the cop had the temerity to do his job properly, that she punched him in the chest, slapped his face, or hit him with a cell phone, depending on the version you read.
The fact that she would even consider doing such a thing speaks enough of her arrogance. But the fact that she now blames the cop, society, racism, President Bush, the boogey man - EVERYONE but herself (she's expressed "regret" but has refused to apologize) says all that needs to be said about her character. Apparently, because there are race issues in our society, she's entitled to physically abuse a person who risks his life to keep her safe. I guess it also means she has no responsibility for her actions, and that any bad thing she does is society's fault. What are we supposed to take away from this example of leadership? What are young black children in her district supposed to learn from her behavior?
The irony is that the officer represents the "little guy" here. He's just a regular guy, doing his job, and making a living. He's charged with an awesome task - allowing the public access to see their government in action while somehow trying to identify and exclude people who might want to harm that government. For her not to recognize the position he was in, and the impossible choice she forced on him - she represents everything you DON'T want in a leader.
She should have thanked him for his vigilance, not called him a racist. I'm glad the Capitol Police are refusing to bow to her official pressure and are pressing charges against her. The men and women who labor in that environment must have the reassurance that when they make a split-second, reasonable call with the safety (not convenience) of hundreds of people in mind, that they will not be left hanging in the wind. Otherwise, the seat of our government will be far less safe, something bad will happen, and then the public will have less access to their representatives.
I don't know what's worse - her refusal to accept ANY responsibility, or the people who support her as she wallows in her disgusting display of selfishness, arrogance, lack of grace and class, and her gross abuse of her position of power.
How selfish! How cowardly! I don't care how much racial profiling she thinks exists in this country - she messed up, and messed up big time. It would only have taken her a few seconds to show her identification. But instead, HER time was so valuable that she was entitled to run a security checkpoint. She not wearing proper identification. She ignored the repeated warnings to stop. She could have prevented the confrontation at any time. And then she was so incensed that the cop had the temerity to do his job properly, that she punched him in the chest, slapped his face, or hit him with a cell phone, depending on the version you read.
The fact that she would even consider doing such a thing speaks enough of her arrogance. But the fact that she now blames the cop, society, racism, President Bush, the boogey man - EVERYONE but herself (she's expressed "regret" but has refused to apologize) says all that needs to be said about her character. Apparently, because there are race issues in our society, she's entitled to physically abuse a person who risks his life to keep her safe. I guess it also means she has no responsibility for her actions, and that any bad thing she does is society's fault. What are we supposed to take away from this example of leadership? What are young black children in her district supposed to learn from her behavior?
The irony is that the officer represents the "little guy" here. He's just a regular guy, doing his job, and making a living. He's charged with an awesome task - allowing the public access to see their government in action while somehow trying to identify and exclude people who might want to harm that government. For her not to recognize the position he was in, and the impossible choice she forced on him - she represents everything you DON'T want in a leader.
She should have thanked him for his vigilance, not called him a racist. I'm glad the Capitol Police are refusing to bow to her official pressure and are pressing charges against her. The men and women who labor in that environment must have the reassurance that when they make a split-second, reasonable call with the safety (not convenience) of hundreds of people in mind, that they will not be left hanging in the wind. Otherwise, the seat of our government will be far less safe, something bad will happen, and then the public will have less access to their representatives.
I don't know what's worse - her refusal to accept ANY responsibility, or the people who support her as she wallows in her disgusting display of selfishness, arrogance, lack of grace and class, and her gross abuse of her position of power.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
On Race and Affirmative Action
In response to some of my more vocal and strident views in my Equal Protection class Monday as we were discussing Affirmative Action, a student said this in an E-mail to the professor:
How this can be reconciled with the fact that Clarence Thomas vehemently opposes Affirmative Action is beyond me. The only answer is that he's an "Uncle Tom", a traitor to his race because he had the temerity to think for himself and not vote in lock step with "his people". More personally, this is nothing more than a fancy way of saying that those who oppose Affirmative Action, people who are almost universally conservative or libertarian, are therefore racist at best, and probably have white robes in their closets to boot. This would be offensive if it wasn't so silly. But since I don't particularly like being called a white supremacist, and since I initially intended to blog on this when Hillary came out with her plantation comments, I'll respond. Publicly.
The only way to seriously hold such a view is to not actually know any conservatives, or at least to adamantly refuse to ever consider for a moment that their ideas have been arrived at in good faith. While I would never support it, you can see why people make the argument to have an "ideological affirmative action" program in colleges. Those who believe all conservatives are Jerry Falwell clones who "we all know sit around in a back room and talk about how you can keep the brown people down" (something I was told in earnest at a pub debate last year) would be in for a rude awakening.
The student said that she considered the idea of a meritocracy "illusory." I couldn't disagree more. I believe that every single person born in America, no matter their race, gender, economic circumstance, level of school funding, etc. Can do whatever they want with their lives. Are some of them starting (a lot) further behind than others? Sure. Will life be unfair to some? Without question. Can there ever be a "pure" meritocracy? Never. Does that mean American minorities are "helpless" or that they "cannot help themselves"? Not on your life. Don't believe it. Many have more obstacles to overcome than say, John Kerry or George Bush did. (Ronald Reagan comes to mind, as does Clarence Thomas himself.) Some will not be able to recover easily from bad choices early in life, like Ted Kennedy did when he escaped serious jail time after Chappaquiddick. But they can make it. They can improve their circumstances. And they can go the distance.
Jim Crow laws change that equation, because the obstacles they created were particularly high and so publicly sanctioned. But even as odious and powerful as they were, those obstacles could be overcome, and were in many cases (such as the parents and grandparents of our current Secretary of State and darling of '08-looking Republicans). Those laws are now in our past, and things have improved. We should continue to be vigilant against state sponsored and/or endorsed racism, and I believe we are.
There is still racism in this country, and we are right to condemn it. But I disagree that racism is still so widespread and endemic to our culture that it can account for the racial disparities that still exist. I don't believe Affirmative Action works because it does not address the underlying cause of the problem in the year 2006. Instead, it addresses the underlying cause of the problem as it was in 1968. Maybe it was the right thing to do back then. But it cannot now be said that nothing has changed, or that it is any longer a viable solution.
The reason for the initial racial disparity was without question racism. But the reason for its perpetuation into the 21st Century has been a culture that is afraid to condemn black entertainers from using "nigger" in every other sentence. It's a very liberal educational structure that fears standards and refuses to insist that all Americans learn to speak and use English correctly, and those who would tell Bill Cosby to "chill out" when he notes "ebonics" for the insipid evil it is. It's a 70% illegitimacy rate among blacks (Sen Moynihan noted was a "crisis" when it was only 30%). It's overwhelming black-on-black violence. It's an NAACP who has become a faithful ATM to a single political party, one which takes black voters for granted. It's the lack of condemnation of the likes of Louis Ferakkan for his anti-Semitic and inflammatory rhetoric. It is also an overreaching government, where administrative law is used to keep out competition or to ensure union dominance.
But the worst enemy of true integration is that there are large and powerful political forces in this country which have a vested interest in convincing us that (a) we are still a profoundly racist society, and (b) that unless we continue to elect them, that the problem will never be solved. The problem is that they don't actually WANT the problem to be solved, because then they would lose their morally compelling crusade and near monopoly on black votes. It's kind of like the state relationship with tobacco taxes, where they want people to stop smoking, but not really.
Republicans are guilty too. Blacks are of secondary concern, because they know those votes will never go to them, so why address their concerns? (Or more accurately, bother talking to them more to sell them on the belief that minorities will in fact benefit greatly from conservative policies?) They tried a little harder this time, but not enough. A black vote more "up for grabs" politically would do more for black interests than all the racial quotas in the world.
That's why black conservatives are attacked so viciously. Too many examples that don't fit the "victim" paradigm of black people who "need our help, and ONLY our help" threaten their already fading power. And if it's a white conservative? Well, then we must just be trying to maintain our superiority. Talk about ad hominem!
Affirmative Action may help a racial balance in the short term, but it does nothing to actually solve the problems underlying racial disparities. And there are second, third, and fourth order consequences, as Justice Thomas noted so eloquently in his dissent, that make the programs a net loss for racial minorities. And voting for feel-good legislation that makes one feel less racist, despite negative consequences to the racial group one purports to help is not something to be proud of. Results matter.
The USA will never be not-racist enough for liberals. We will never have a society that it perfectly fair. When we charge government with actively enforcing fairness at all levels of life, instead of getting out of everyone's way, they have to keep adjusting, continuously intruding, and always creating both innocent victims and new excuses for failure from both whites and blacks.
One of the things that galls me the most is this concept that blacks in this country must be "taken care of". We "take care" of animals, children, and property. How arrogant and insulting to apply that to adult citizens! Let's give all Americans of every color enough credit as full grown human beings and citizens to finally give all of us full credit for our accomplishments, our failures, and our actions. Because Affirmative Action is antithetical to that goal, I reject it. Without even having to put on a white robe.
I cannot help but feel that the resistance to affirmative action is to ensure the historical dominance of whites in every facet of society (education, employment, etc.). It seems to me a very basic issue of supremacy and ensuring that it is maintained for the historically dominant group.
How this can be reconciled with the fact that Clarence Thomas vehemently opposes Affirmative Action is beyond me. The only answer is that he's an "Uncle Tom", a traitor to his race because he had the temerity to think for himself and not vote in lock step with "his people". More personally, this is nothing more than a fancy way of saying that those who oppose Affirmative Action, people who are almost universally conservative or libertarian, are therefore racist at best, and probably have white robes in their closets to boot. This would be offensive if it wasn't so silly. But since I don't particularly like being called a white supremacist, and since I initially intended to blog on this when Hillary came out with her plantation comments, I'll respond. Publicly.
The only way to seriously hold such a view is to not actually know any conservatives, or at least to adamantly refuse to ever consider for a moment that their ideas have been arrived at in good faith. While I would never support it, you can see why people make the argument to have an "ideological affirmative action" program in colleges. Those who believe all conservatives are Jerry Falwell clones who "we all know sit around in a back room and talk about how you can keep the brown people down" (something I was told in earnest at a pub debate last year) would be in for a rude awakening.
The student said that she considered the idea of a meritocracy "illusory." I couldn't disagree more. I believe that every single person born in America, no matter their race, gender, economic circumstance, level of school funding, etc. Can do whatever they want with their lives. Are some of them starting (a lot) further behind than others? Sure. Will life be unfair to some? Without question. Can there ever be a "pure" meritocracy? Never. Does that mean American minorities are "helpless" or that they "cannot help themselves"? Not on your life. Don't believe it. Many have more obstacles to overcome than say, John Kerry or George Bush did. (Ronald Reagan comes to mind, as does Clarence Thomas himself.) Some will not be able to recover easily from bad choices early in life, like Ted Kennedy did when he escaped serious jail time after Chappaquiddick. But they can make it. They can improve their circumstances. And they can go the distance.
Jim Crow laws change that equation, because the obstacles they created were particularly high and so publicly sanctioned. But even as odious and powerful as they were, those obstacles could be overcome, and were in many cases (such as the parents and grandparents of our current Secretary of State and darling of '08-looking Republicans). Those laws are now in our past, and things have improved. We should continue to be vigilant against state sponsored and/or endorsed racism, and I believe we are.
There is still racism in this country, and we are right to condemn it. But I disagree that racism is still so widespread and endemic to our culture that it can account for the racial disparities that still exist. I don't believe Affirmative Action works because it does not address the underlying cause of the problem in the year 2006. Instead, it addresses the underlying cause of the problem as it was in 1968. Maybe it was the right thing to do back then. But it cannot now be said that nothing has changed, or that it is any longer a viable solution.
The reason for the initial racial disparity was without question racism. But the reason for its perpetuation into the 21st Century has been a culture that is afraid to condemn black entertainers from using "nigger" in every other sentence. It's a very liberal educational structure that fears standards and refuses to insist that all Americans learn to speak and use English correctly, and those who would tell Bill Cosby to "chill out" when he notes "ebonics" for the insipid evil it is. It's a 70% illegitimacy rate among blacks (Sen Moynihan noted was a "crisis" when it was only 30%). It's overwhelming black-on-black violence. It's an NAACP who has become a faithful ATM to a single political party, one which takes black voters for granted. It's the lack of condemnation of the likes of Louis Ferakkan for his anti-Semitic and inflammatory rhetoric. It is also an overreaching government, where administrative law is used to keep out competition or to ensure union dominance.
But the worst enemy of true integration is that there are large and powerful political forces in this country which have a vested interest in convincing us that (a) we are still a profoundly racist society, and (b) that unless we continue to elect them, that the problem will never be solved. The problem is that they don't actually WANT the problem to be solved, because then they would lose their morally compelling crusade and near monopoly on black votes. It's kind of like the state relationship with tobacco taxes, where they want people to stop smoking, but not really.
Republicans are guilty too. Blacks are of secondary concern, because they know those votes will never go to them, so why address their concerns? (Or more accurately, bother talking to them more to sell them on the belief that minorities will in fact benefit greatly from conservative policies?) They tried a little harder this time, but not enough. A black vote more "up for grabs" politically would do more for black interests than all the racial quotas in the world.
That's why black conservatives are attacked so viciously. Too many examples that don't fit the "victim" paradigm of black people who "need our help, and ONLY our help" threaten their already fading power. And if it's a white conservative? Well, then we must just be trying to maintain our superiority. Talk about ad hominem!
Affirmative Action may help a racial balance in the short term, but it does nothing to actually solve the problems underlying racial disparities. And there are second, third, and fourth order consequences, as Justice Thomas noted so eloquently in his dissent, that make the programs a net loss for racial minorities. And voting for feel-good legislation that makes one feel less racist, despite negative consequences to the racial group one purports to help is not something to be proud of. Results matter.
The USA will never be not-racist enough for liberals. We will never have a society that it perfectly fair. When we charge government with actively enforcing fairness at all levels of life, instead of getting out of everyone's way, they have to keep adjusting, continuously intruding, and always creating both innocent victims and new excuses for failure from both whites and blacks.
One of the things that galls me the most is this concept that blacks in this country must be "taken care of". We "take care" of animals, children, and property. How arrogant and insulting to apply that to adult citizens! Let's give all Americans of every color enough credit as full grown human beings and citizens to finally give all of us full credit for our accomplishments, our failures, and our actions. Because Affirmative Action is antithetical to that goal, I reject it. Without even having to put on a white robe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
