I don't know the answer to #1 and apparently Junior is being coy about it.

As far as #2 goes, again, I can't say that he got in because he was black and someone else got bumped as a result. Maybe so. Maybe not.

What actually got my attention was what Sen. Alexander (R-TN) said:

"The model that we should focus on is what the United States Army has done. If the list for promotion to colonel shows up all-white, they send it back and say, 'Look a little harder.' They don't say, 'Look for somebody less qualified.'"

He says he benefitted from it. So either he got his 20 points and that got him in, or he's making his shit up.

I suppose that's option 3: full of shit.

I certainly find Senator Alexander's attitude less offensive, but I'd have to know more. 20 free points for being black, with no consideration to whether you really deserve that or not is a quota by any stretch of the imagination.

You want to really help people? Concentrate on poverty and lousy schools. Help them, and you help poor white kids who need and deserve it just as much as any hispanic, who are being discriminated against by the lousy and unconscionable current system. But since there are a disproportionate number of black and hispanic poor, you'll help disproportionately more of them.

It seems to be working in California. And Texas. And Florida.

But I don't know of any poor destitute undereducated Army Majors, do you?

No, Dean, the 20 points isn't a quota system. Not when the total points equal 150.

It DOES end up giving "under-represented minorities" a 20 point advantage in the race to the finish line, true enough. So maybe it's a distinction without a difference. I will grant you that.

[BTW, when it has a category called "under-represented minorities" the college kind of tips it's hand, doesn't it? Just asking....]

You also said:

You want to really help people? Concentrate on poverty and lousy schools. Help them, and you help poor white kids who need and deserve it just as much as any hispanic, who are being discriminated against by the lousy and unconscionable current system.

Would it surprise you to learn that point systems like the U of M grant points to students who come from "poverty and lousy schools?"

This is what David Gergen, god help us, claims. He says he was a beneficiary of affirmative action because he was a white guy from North Carolina, but got into an Ivy League school with a point system that favored people of his kind.

White guys from North Carolina are an "under-represented minority" in Ivy League schools??

No Way! But that's what he says. Whatever.

This whole thing is started to sound like the climax of that Kirk Douglas sword and sandal movie:

Condi: "I am Spartacus!"
Lamar!: "No, I am Spartacus!"
Gergen: "No, I am Spartacus!"

Alexander's comments was just flat out weird. But what you said:

But I don't know of any poor destitute undereducated Army Majors, do you?

was also weird. Am I supposed to go look for majors on food stamps?

I fear that there are more of those than we'd like to think.

[sigh] Talk about a can of worms.

No, Dean, the 20 points isn't a quota system. Not when the total points equal 150.

Ara,
One distinction it's a possible 150 points. BUT, they only need 100 points to gain entry. So a 20 point head start is a HUGE lead without even looking at academics.

Everyone in my family graduated from Cody H.S in Detroit. We did live in an inner city. We were poor, immigrants, and WHITE. If they gave impoverished areas points too...EXPLAIN WHY ALICE DIDN'T GET IN!!!!! No extra points for the uterus...Shame, shame, shame.

Harold Ford got his 20 racist points that he didn't need and voila. Being a recipient of AA isn't something to be proud of...it makes people think you aren't up to competing on an equal playing field.

Dean - Good questions! I'd like to hear more from Ford about why he thinks he deserved his preference. Maybe, as you recognized, he made it up. He won't disclose his grades or test scores, so maybe he didn't get/need a preference. Following your lead, I've just commented on this on my site, in which I ask a related set of questions of Rep. Dick Gephardt, another Michigan law grad who defends preferences.

What Ford ought to be asking himself, is where was all that Affirmative Action when his fellow Democrats pushed him out of the way to get to Nancy Pelosi for Minority Leader.

Here was the chance for Dems to actually promote a person of color to the upper ranks of their party, and they stepped on him and pushed him aside.

Maybe I am being presumptuous; but just how does Harold Ford, Jr. know that SPECIFICALLY he benefited from AA @ U of M? Do they send an acceptance letter to every single person of color who gets in on his merits a letter saying, "You were not accepted because of AA? Or, does the UM enrollment office send you letter saying you were accepted because of AA?

Harold Ford, Jr. does not sound to me like anybody who actually needs affirmative action. He is really quite articulate, well informed, and sounds well read, too. Harvard accepted Al Gore, Jr., where Gore nearly flunked out, largely because his father was a sitting United States Senator from TN. Do you not think that the University of Michigan may have used the same reasoning?

Remember, Harold Ford, Jr. is a Democrat. This party FAVORS affirmative action. Is it not possible that congressman Ford is not pandering to his base? After all, he does aspire to be minority or majority leader.

One aspect never discussed about racial preferences is how affirmative action programs subsidize poor, under performing public schools. Nobody can deny that taxpayers’ children deserve equal access to our public universities. The actual disagreement is what constitutes fair admittance standards.

Thomas Sowell wrote in a recent column that black and Hispanic students admitted to top academic universities under racial preferences graduate at lower rates than their Caucasian counterparts. I believe it was 39% to 70%. Another qualified student is denied a seat who would more likely graduate for every matriculating student who drops out. Is this fair?

I can sympathize with minorities who correctly believe they deserve equal opportunities. They deserve admission to universities as anyone else does. But is it proper for state governments to admit students who might not be academically qualified because of their race? The problem minorities face in admissions is not that they are less qualified. It is that they are less educated than many of their white counterparts. Everybody knows there are two school systems in the Michigan: Detroit and the rest of Michigan. Detroit schools are terrible because Detroit is so corrupt.

Channel 7 action news last month featured a reporter asking numerous public school employees at a public school where the new computers were. He got the run around. The principal told him three times to “go ask media services.” One office employee ran away from the reporter when asked where her computer was. Her office desk was computer-less. The reporter then said that 16 pieces of computer equipment out of 670 in that school were actually present in the school itself. Janitors took home computers. Office Workers took home computers. There were virtually no computers left for the students!

Our public school system today is about jobs. It is no longer about the kids. Nobody should attend such poorly administered schools. The actual problem, never addressed, is not that minorities should be granted special admissions status. It is that minority students should be better educated to qualify for top universities in the first place. Otherwise, taxpayer money is wasted teaching students who will drop out at higher rates than the general population. It also ensures that problems actually originating in primary and secondary education will remain unaddressed. Taxpayers not only must continually fund under performing primary and secondary schools; we then have the new opportunity to subsidize them again (albeit in a non-economically) when our progeny are denied a seat for which they are academically qualified.

Racial preferences only guarantee substandard primary education for those most disserved by it. Government then compensates them with slack admittance standards. Government waste and mismanagement is no more manifest than here. Hopefully the United States Supreme Court will do the right thing by forcing educators to address the real issue.

Ara: What almost no one in the press is acknowledging is that, throughout the 1980s, U of M, like almost all of America's top universities, did have an explicit quota system.

How did their quota system work then? They calculated different required GPAs and SAT scores for blacks, hispanics, whites, etc. If you were black, you needed this GPA and that SAT score. If you were white, you needed this much. And so on.

Would you call that a quota? The goal was to guarantee, based solely on race, a certain number of black bodies enrolled.

So. They were finally forced to admit to doing this, just like the rest of America's competitive universities. And the courts decided in the early 1990s that this was a violation of both the Constitution's equal protection clause, AND a direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So what did they do?

They scrapped the old system, and calculated that if they just gave black people an automatic 20 points, that would guarantee that the same percentage of them would make the cut as made it under the old system.

Oh, but that's not a quota, right?

Pbtbtbtbt!

What's disgusting is it's all based on how to get a minimum number of black bodies onto the campus. How well they do once they get there, that's not even a major issue. Most of those black students will fail, but hey, at least we have "diversity," right? And that's what matters, right?

A couple of things before I forget:

Can we stop pretending that race is the only immutable quality that gets "extra points" here?

When the argument founders on that aspect of student admissions, I get .... queasy.

Legacy admissions achieve the same result -- you get a head start due to the circumstances of your birth. I don't need to drop any names, now do I? The list of legacy admissions is long and "distinguished" regardless of your political persuasion.

Why isn't anyone talking about that?

Can't we be a little more consistent here?

And as far as students flunking out...how many athletes (who got the same 20 pts) would, or did, flunk out or never graduated?

And besides, didn't the quarterback displace the math major to begin with? Where's that at?

It's about the money that college athletics brings to the University. That isn't a bad thing in and of itself. But let's be real about it, OK?

Points for race is debatable. But so are legacy admissions and college athletic "scholarships" (anyone notice that Chris Weber of the Sacremento Kings got indicted recently?)

Can't we have a nuanced discussion about all three?

Why does it have to focus on race?

Oh. Here's another example of how certain "immutable characteristics" can get you into college.

It's not about race (not directly, anyway). Nor is it about legacy admissions (although it seems to have something to do with class distinctions).

It's about learning disabilities.

According to the writer, LD status might allow certain unqualified students to get extra points toward admission when they apply (although her point on that is somewhat unclear).

Furthermore, they can qualify for all sorts of breaks AFTER THEY ARE IN, to assure they don't flunk out. Kind of like what the athletic department does for its star athletes.

It's from a letter published in Joe Conason's blog at Salon Magazine:

My husband works for a university that has a huge 'LD' program that essentially allows rich white students to buy special treatment in college.

By getting a doctor's diagnosis as 'learning disabled' and paying for 'enhanced LD services,' parents of these students get tutors, extra testing time, assistance on tests, etc.

It is a virtual 'profit center' for the cash-strapped university, and many of these students are not so much 'learning disabled' as they are rich, lazy and dumb!

Some of these people have to have their exams read to them because they can't read; others can't write; they get four hours instead of two to complete an exam, etc.

There is a huge amount of staff time and energy [spent] just getting these kids through college. But none of it shows up on the transcript--it's all confidential!

When you see these kids pull up for services and jump out of the $40,000 SUV that daddy bought them, its hard not to get a bit irritated….

[This] is happening at universities all over the country.…The program needs to be exposed, but too many people are afraid to speak up for fear of being accused of discriminating against the disabled. But the reality is that the key criterion for receiving these services is ability to pay…You know what bothers me about this? The angry, bitter tone. Kind of like the anger and bitterness that seems to seep into the arguments of many of the opponents of affirmative action when they focus exclusively on race.

My point is this: There are lots of unfair things about college admissions, apparently. Racial preferences are only one. Other "immutable characteristics" can get you into college.

Why do some of us focus on one set of characteristics and not another set?

Why don't we open up the discussion and include the merits of preferential treatment for ALL "immutable characteristics?"

Why the relentless focus on race?

And please don't accuse me of changing the subject, unless you are ready to say that the subject IS race.

Can we stop pretending that race is the only immutable quality that gets "extra points" here?

Sure thing. If you'll stop pretending that racial discrimination isn't against the law, and a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, while those other factors are within the law, within the Constitution, and not something that America spent 200 years trying to get behind us.

And if you'll stop pretending that the racial benefit isn't quite a bit more influential, widespread, and destructive than most of the other "special" factors that you bring up.

And if you'll stop ignoring the fact that what you're advocating is racial discrimination.

No problem at all for me.

You want to go after getting rid of those other factors, more power to you brother.

In the meantime, this is where I take my stand: there is nothing more morally disgusting or hideously destructive on today's university campuses than than the widespread racial discrimination that goes by the Orwelliean name of "Affirmative Action."

You know what bothers me about this? The angry, bitter tone.

Tough shit.

What bothers me is this asinine evasions of the moral issue by stupid comparisons to legacy admissions. What you are talking about is telling my child that he is less important than other people's children, based on his skin color.

That is what is at stake here. That being the case, I have absolutely no problem letting it be known just how angry I am.

Of course, even without that, I'd still be angry and bitter. For my entire life since I was a teenager, I've believed passionately in treating people the same regardless of skin color. When I was a teenager, most of my friends and relatives--most of whom were unapologetic racists, as it happened--considered me a flaming liberal because of it.

Today, my position has changed not one iota, and now I'm considered a "conservative" who is shedding "crocodile tears."

Well, what the fuck ever. I've said all these same things to neo-Nazi apologists who bragged about throwing molotov cocktails into the homes of black people. So what makes you think I'll be worried about how you'll feel when I say the same exact things to you?

Why do some of us focus on one set of characteristics and not another set?

Tell you what.

If U of M starts giving 10 points for being white, but 0 points for being Jewish--since it is a statistical fact that Jews are over-represented in the elite universities like U of M--will that be okay with you?

I mean, if the goal is diversity and all, having too many Jews kind of messes that up, doesn't it?

If U of M starts giving 10 points for being white, but 0 points for being Jewish--since it is a statistical fact that Jews are over-represented in the elite universities like U of M--will that be okay with you?

heh. sounds like deja vu all over again, pal.

In response to your questions and to the article, these are my views:

Question #1 was totally uncalled for and was totally irrelevant to the article. For you to judge this Congressman like that leads me to believe that you are quite closed-minded and oblivious to what he was saying in the article.
A professor of Cogressman Ford stated that he was an excellent student. Surely it was not said just out of admiration of this person, but he proved with his itellegence that he could succeed at the University of Michigan. And the fact that he refused to comment on his G.P.A. is also no reason to assume that he has no confidence in his scholastic abilities.

I feel that this whole issue is a waste of time and tax-payers funds. Affirmative Action is fair, and should be in place to make up for the 450+ years that the white man kept minorities in total ignorance. Affirmative Action is just a small token of the many apologies and restitutions owed to my people. This issue that Bush feels is more important, than the other major issues going on, as well as the thoughtless and insensitive remarks made by Senator Trent Lott last month, further lets me know that racism and keeping the black race further behind had just been swept under the rug... meaning, it is still is in existence. Bush has far more important issues to worry about, and needs to set his priorities. I think that Congressman Ford is doing a great job, and is leading the way for more young people to follow and have the same opportunities to go to college. To those who feel that UM's policy is unfair, my advice to you is to pick another school!

If Mr. Ford's grades and GPA were good enough, he would be able to get in on his own merits. But he says he benefitted from the program which gives him special priviledges based on his race.

Which tells me that he must believe that his grades and his GPA were not good enough to get in.

On another matter: what makes you think that I, who was born long after your people received equal rights under the law, owe you or your people anything at all? Beyond the equal protection under the law that has been in place since 1964?

Why, for that matter, do you deserve special priviledges that my 5 year old son does not?

I notice that none of you who defend the university's policies seem willing to answer that question directly.

First of all, I had a very high G.P.A. and applied to an Ivy League university, and was deinied because the "race quota for that year had been filled." Again, to say that Rep. Ford did not have the grades to get in is bull. There are people with good grades that do not get into the colleges of their choice everyday. The 20 pts that they give for race was probably the difference between him getting accepted, and being denied. Now, put yourself in the shoes of an african-american, or even a Jewish person. How would you feel if you were kidnapped from your way of life by some thoughtless, cruel person for their own personal gain? How would you feel if someone took your son away from you, the rights that he currently has (which, by the way, are still more than the average black child your son's age) and turned him into a slave? I am not saying you, directly, owe me. I am saying that Affirmative Action is the white man's way of saying, "I'm sorry for keeping you ignorant and imprisioned for so long." And I feel that restitution is owed to us, just like it was owed, and paid to the holocust survivors. Not saying that I am a racist, but white america has had privileges handed to them, so much so that they have become greedy, and feel that they are the only ones who should reap all benefits and rewards. That it's tough shit for everyone else who cannot. Minorities have been treated unfairly for too long. And it's not just blacks. It is all non-whites (asians, hispanics, even jewish people). Now if you were black, on the other hand, half of the comments that you've made would have been eaten. We say in the pledge of allegiance.... "with liberty and justice for all." But still today, there is still inequality. In a small suburb, not too far from where I live, Blacks are still struggling to try to live there without crossed being burned in front of their homes, or the children being called "little niggers." While I, personally, have never had to use Affirmative Action, because my brains and personality sells me for whatever job I have gotten, It's great to know that it's there if I ever need it. Again, if you do not like the rules of the colleges that use the point system, find somewhere else to go to school!

Deanna: First of all, I had a very high G.P.A. and applied to an Ivy League university, and was deinied because the "race quota for that year had been filled."

This is all the more reason for you to oppose racist policies like that and the one at U of M, isn't it?

Which Ivy League university was this, by the way?

Again, to say that Rep. Ford did not have the grades to get in is bull.

U of M says they need to give black people 20 extra points because they cannot find enough black people with high enough grades and SAT scores to make the cut as most of the white and Asian kids.

So if that's bull, you have to ask the University why it says this, not me.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of an african-american, or even a Jewish person. How would you feel if you were kidnapped from your way of life by some thoughtless, cruel person for their own personal gain?

When has this ever happened to you, Deonna?

I am saying that Affirmative Action is the white man's way of saying, "I'm sorry for keeping you ignorant and imprisioned for so long."

When were you kept ignorant and imprisoned, Doanna? Are you still ignorant? Are you still imprisoned? Who is doing this to you, so I can help you escape--like my white ancestors did for your black ancestors.

And I feel that restitution is owed to us, just like it was owed, and paid to the holocust survivors.

Only people who were actually in the camps were paid money, Deanna.

How old are you? When were you ever a slave? When did you ever experience legal segregation?

And how long are you going to demand these priviledges for yourself that my children do not get?

And it's not just blacks. It is all non-whites (asians, hispanics, even jewish people). .

But Deonna: Jews don't get these special priviledges that you demand. Neither do Asians. Or Arabs.

Only for you and your children are these special considerations put into place.

Why do your children deserve something mine don't, Deonna?

Now if you were black, on the other hand, half of the comments that you've made would have been eaten.

Sorry, Deonna, but there are black people who agree with me. Including at least one of my old girlfriends. So that shit don't fly with me.

Are you aware, Deonna, that most poor kids in the U.S. are white? That the majority of people living in poor communities and dependent on welfare are not black, but white?

My wife's parents came to this country in 1966. When did they get special treatment for being white?

My family was dirt poor growing up. When did I get special treatment for being white?

My son Jake's best friend is named DJ. DJ's black. He lives a few doors down. Same neighborhood as us, obviously. Same school, too.

What no one who continues to try to defend U of M's policies will answer me is this:

Why does DJ deserve special consideration that my son does not?

And I know why you people won't answer it: because you know in your hearts that it is inexcusable.

Actually, I did know that about whites being on welfare. The thing about the majority of the whites on welfare is that they have ways of getting off and becoming successful. As far as the accusation of me being racist, I am not. One of my best friends is a white girl, who, by the way, agrees with affirmative action. I will not disclose the school that I applied to, but will say this.... it wasn't the University of Michigan. If anything, there should be some revisions to affirmative action. It should not be done away with.

As far as Congressman Ford is concerned, I still maintain that he is a highly intellegent person. If you have heard him speak (2000 Democratic National Convention), it's proof that he has brains. As far as his family dynasty, he has always let it be know that he never wanted his name to be a reason why he gets anything.

As far as my experience with segregation.... I am 24 yrs old. I have never experienced segregation. I have, however, experienced, and still do, experience racism. I wish, like I sure you do, that this world could be perfect, and that equality could be for all, and the ignorant, color-conscience people could go to Mars. But it is not that way. Also, just as you probably wonder what the world will be like in 15 yrs for your son, so do I for my unborn children.

Now as far as the University of Michigan is concerned: More than likely in the near future, the Supreme Court will rule the point system unconstitutional. The whole issue of affirmative action will be revisited. Again, I stress that there should be some revisions, but should not be done away with. There is still little inequality for minorities. As for the Arabs, most of them do not need the advantages of affirmative action because they are wealthy enough to finance their child's education. The Asians have taken over the business world in urban communities, so they can also afford, and usually do, to send their children to the best colleges and universities in the country. You're right, the average american cannot afford to send their child to a decent college without the child having to rack up $100,000 worth of debt in student loans they have to pay back after graduation (I was blessed because my parents had enough money to put me through undergrad and grad school, as well as financing my sister's education).

Dean, What I am trying to stress is that things are going to change. I do also feel that your son will have more rights and opportunities than the average black child. I know this because I was an educator in an urban school, as well as completing student teaching in a suburban school. I saw the differences in the cultures, even with the poor white children in the urban schools. It's people like yourself, and me, who want change, that need to work together to make it happen.

Dean,
I have already answered why.

Like most people I think you misunderstand the purpose for affirmative action. This program is not to hold spots for unqualified, inferror blacks and its not to make up for and historical wrong doings that america have has done to the black community. It's simply create diversity and provent racial dicrimation. I think that fact that Rep. Ford came from a privelidged family and had oppurtuities that most people didn't have had nothing to do with him benefiting from the program. affermative action is not about individuals it's about the greater good of society.

Like most defenders of racial discrimination, Katrina, you're ill-informed.

First, because those who do use these systems specifically justify them on the grounds of righting historical wrongs.

Second, because every study that's been done has shown that blacks who get in on affirmative action do average lower test scores and lower grades than other races, which is why the preferences have been put in place in the first place.

It is not to the benefit of society to discriminate. And all these Affirmative Action programs do is discriminate.