I wasn't aware that educational benefits were supposed to flow FROM the student body.

Ass.

The only thing I'm going to say is that when I continue my education in the humanities, I'll do so in Europe. At least there they accept you on merit!

Let’s get down to the brass tacks. Can’t congress simply pass a law, or Bush an executive order, stating that if a school receives government funding of any sort, or enrolls students who receive government scholarships or loan guarantees of any sort, then that school is not allowed to make any inquiries about or allusions to an applicant’s race anywhere on the application form? If campuses can be forced to accept military recruiters, then certainly this is well within the power of the Republican-controlled executive and legislative branches.

Dean:

Sigh. This is going to be a long thread.

Similarly, we certainly haven't seen the end of this battle in the courts. Like I said yesterday, the issue is only settled "for now."

Previously, you said --

25 years ago, they called me a hard-core liberal because I vigorously opposed discrimination based on race. Now they call me a right-wing extremist because I vigorously oppose discrimination based on race...

Hmm. In 1978 I don't recall being called a liberal for opposing racial discrimination. Who were you hanging out with? 1958 maybe or possibly 1968. But I digress...

Ask yourself these questions:

1.) why did you oppose discrimination then, and why do you oppose it now? Is it because you take pride in being consistent, i.e., you find discrimination of any kind repugnant?

2.) If so, do you beleve that the negative effects of today's discriminatory policies really as bad as the negative effects of yesterday's discriminatory policies? Please explain.

3.) Why do you suppose the U-M (and many many corporations and of course all the military service academies) why do they practice discriminatory policies in recruiting, hiring and promotions?

Is it because they hate white people, or find them to be inferior, or members of a sub-human species?

If you believe this, do you also believe that this is the first slide back down some Hitlerian slippery slope...?

4.) Expanding on my earlier question, have you considered that it might be possible that the net effect of these discriminatory policies are positive and not negative?

=========

Justice Scalia says:

"Unlike a clear constitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are impermissible...or even a clear anticonstitutional holding that racial preferences in state educational institutions are OK..."

Circular logic, or as Dean is wont to say, "Axiomatic, A Priori Assumptions."

Todd:

Can’t congress simply pass a law...stating that if a school receives government funding of any sort...then that school is not allowed to make any inquiries about or allusions to an applicant’s race ...?

They certainly could (and probably will) try.

But I think that there will be countersuits because the "desirable minority" applicant and the University have an incentive to find each other.

And as we've already seen, that is OK.

Before I forget --

25 years ago, they called me a hard-core liberal because I vigorously opposed discrimination based on race. Now they call me a right-wing extremist because I vigorously oppose discrimination based on race...

Life just seems like it's one long, confusing, unfair struggle after another, doesn't it?

the state of CA did so in a 1996 ballot innitiative (Prop 209) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-affirm24jun24,1,6573080.story?coll=la-home-headlines

but I don't think the federal government could legally restrict state funding that way. Certainly it would be a hard blow to state's rights if they did that. Federal funding they could control, but I don't think the federal government directly funds univesities, most money comes as grants for projects, which reduces the control they have.

The other problem with such an order is most people basically favor the position that Justice O'Connor took, that discrimination is fine, as long as you don't tell us what you're doing. Which makes such a law difficult to get passed.

I personally would rather the decision had gone differently on both decisions. If diversity is valuable at any level in universities it is at the undergraduate level. The Michigan point system may have over valued diversity, esp racial diversity, but I don't think the court should have ruled 'no point systems' rather 'this is too much, academic ability should count for more than an accident of birth.' Also that is the highest level at which I think it is reasonable to try and repair damage done due to past discrimination.
On the other hand, graduate and professional schools should rely solely on performance in college or the working world, and try to produce good lawyers, doctors, or degree holders. I'd much rather be confident that a defense attorney did not get into law school because he was black, than be confident that the law school he went to was 'diverse'.
Besides, I prefer a well understood points system to a vague, 'oh trust us, we consider it just the right amount.'

Even granting that judges (with the
solitary blessed exception of Thomas)
have never actually read the
Constitution, I wish they would pay
some attention to the more basic
rule of law. Quite simply, a law
that cannot be understood is a law
open to all sorts of bribery and
chicanery. I have to assume from
their behavior that most judges
really -want- to generate a maximum
amount of resentment, contempt and
corruption. This is, of course, the
explicit goal of Leninists, so I
shouldn't be surprised.

Ara,
Hope you don't mind if I answer a few of your questions.

1.) why did you oppose discrimination then, and why do you oppose it now? Is it because you take pride in being consistent, i.e., you find discrimination of any kind repugnant?

There's nothing wrong with discrimination, but I find racial discrimination distasteful. I don't see the benefit of keeping everyone confined to their racial category, and rewarding some for it. A more meaningful, less stigmatizing reward category could be found. Why not need? Why couldn't universities actively recruit and lower standards for applicants who can demonstrate poor community school systems, low incomes, etc.

2.) If so, do you beleve that the negative effects of today's discriminatory policies really as bad as the negative effects of yesterday's discriminatory policies? Please explain.

I'm twenty two, so I don't remember a time of institutionalized racial discrimination against non-whites. However, I can see that we're still feeling the negative effects of it today. Here's a question for you: if we can see the pervasive negative effects of institutionalized racism, (i.e. resentment, less opportunity, poverty, reverse racism, unintended consequences), why do you think the answer is a continuation of race-based policies?

3.) Why do you suppose the U-M (and many many corporations and of course all the military service academies) why do they practice discriminatory policies in recruiting, hiring and promotions?

Because it reflects well on their public image. Because if they didn't, they would be viewed as racist. Also, there is a possibility that Jesse Jackson will come to town and "encourage" them to donate to his Rainbow/PUSH fund or else face a lawsuit.

Is it because they hate white people, or find them to be inferior, or members of a sub-human species?

Nope, although in universities, there is a course of study called "Whiteness Studies", which encourages students to see the contributions whites have made to history: racism, hate, murder, hogging wealth, etc. No, they don't hate white people, do they?

If you believe this, do you also believe that this is the first slide back down some Hitlerian slippery slope...?

4.) Expanding on my earlier question, have you considered that it might be possible that the net effect of these discriminatory policies are positive and not negative?

From my side, I see ill-prepared "protected" minority students dropping out at high rates, most likely due to starting college with insufficient preparation. How is that positive for the student? What good does that do for the minority group?

Here's another question for you: Why is it that we've had AA for almost a quater of a century, and the problem has not improved, has not maintained widespread support (according to recent polls), and hasen't sent racism the way of fedoras and sugar cube acid?

Do people who dislike racial discrimination hate black people? Are we trying to bring back Jim Crow-like segregation? Are we, as one pro-AA speaker said at U-M, secretly wearing white sheets?

This isn't a cut and dried issued of being born black is worth more then a perfect on the SATs. From a debate about this with friend on email:

"An extremely common spin point spit out by right wingnuts is that a black kid gets 20 points in the Michigan system where as a student scoring a perfect on the SAT's only get's 12 points. Again, this is an extremely, blatant misleading statement. A student who scores a perfect on the SAT's is most likely going to qualify for other points given for an outstanding academic record. All the academic points total 112!"

I don't see why they don't give out extra points to students that have family members who went to school at U-M (legacy). Oh, wait they do. I guess this falls under "A cynic might conclude that yesterday's decisions mean universities can still racially discriminate, as long as they're not too obvious about it."

Following quote:

Up to 12 points can be awarded under the Test Score category based on the applicant’s score on the standardized ACT or SAT examination. Up to 98 points can be awarded under the Academic category based on the applicant’s GPA, the category of school attended, and the strength or weakness of the curriculum. And an applicant may receive up to 40 points in the Other Factors category. Up to 20 of those “Other Factors” points can be based on a combination of factors such as geography, alumni relations, and outstanding essay, personal achievement, or leadership and service activity. The remaining 20 “Other Factor” points can be awarded under a “Miscellaneous” heading for socio-economic disadvantage, underrepresented racial/ethnic minority identification or education, athletic scholarship, or discretionary selection by the Provost. The University automatically awards applicants who are members of an “underrepresented racial or ethnic minority group,” defined as African American, Hispanic, or Native American, 20 points under this “Miscellaneous” heading."

It sucks for all of those inner city white kids that have weak curriculums. And it's ok to have alumni relations count for extra points even though most alumni are white, because it is not couched in the terms of racial preference. Whether or not it is an emergent system doesn't matter as long as no one can perceive it. And of course no one compares the legacy system with perfect SATs scores. Man, I hope someone with perfect SATs scores can get accepted to a college.

1) Ara's first question looks like this to me: "Why do you hold that values you've held sacred your whole life, and were taught to hold sacred by people like me, really matter? Is it because you take pride in being consistent?" What kind of question is that?

The second part of question 1 is this kind of question: "If you find one kind of violence unacceptable, does that mean you find all kinds of violence unacceptable?" Again, what kind of question is that?

Both are designed not to discover any profound truth or insight. Mostly, they're designed to nitpick and change the subject.

Still, I will try: I find racial discrimination morally abominable because it's unAmerican, because it hurts people, because it's unnecessary, because it takes our country in the wrong direction for future generations, because I don't want my kid growing up in that world. It's because it causes more harm than good politically.

I know where I stand and why I stand there. So here's my counterquestion:

Why did the liberals of your generation lie and teach its children that racial discrimination was immoral, and why are you abandoning those values now? And why did it take so long to admit that you didn't really mean what you said? And how long do you plan to continue justifying racial discrimination? Another 20 years? Another 40? Another 80? Another 400?

Will you even answer those questions? Here's what I'll bet the answer is this: "I don't know, until it starts to work!"

The possibility that maybe it will never work and will always keep us back as a country will never enter into it. 40 years wasn't enough, so another 40 probably won't be, and in the long run, we're all dead, right?

It's like watching Bullwinkle pull a rabbit out of his hat. Change strategies? Nah! "This time for sure!"

2) Ara's second question looks like this to me: "Is being lied to and abrogating moral values youv'e claimed to stand for your whole life worse than being beaten to death?" Silly, pointless question.

3) Ara's third question looks like this to me: "Why do you suppose that companies, universities, and government agencies are violating the law and all the principles they grew up telling me they were following?" What he doesn't ask is this, "And why do you suppose they kept lying about it for more than ten years, before finally admitting that they were lying?"

The answer is long and complex. And when I've tried to answer them before, he's been nothing but snotty and dismissive about it, and has shown that he hasn't even read much on the subject. But the basic answer has to do with making very bad decisions on how to fix long-term problems, and patching them up with quick-fix solutions that hurt the very minorities they're supposed to help, and hurt other people to boot, most of it in a way that's worse than the alternatives.

4) Ara's fourth question is actually legitimate: "Expanding on my earlier question, have you considered that it might be possible that the net effect of these discriminatory policies are positive and not negative?"

And the answer is yes. But why do I think that Ara has never asked himself that question? Could it be because he's shown deep ignorance and flippant dismissal of the negative effects, which have been well-documented and in many cases are not even in dispute by the authorites who claim that these programs are necessary?

Then, of course, there's Ara's cheap-shot question: "Life just seems like it's one long, confusing, unfair struggle after another, doesn't it?" To which I will respond with my cheap-shot back: Hey Ara, when Strom Thurmond justified racial discrimination, he used mealy-mouthed platitudes and rationalizations about "tradition." When you justified racial discrimination, you used mealy-mouthed platitudes and rationalizations about "diversity." How does it feel to be on Strom's side for once?

And one final question for Ara "have you ever considered that you might be wrong even though I obviously never have?" Rubyan: when will you tell me why it's okay for Colin Powell's son to get special consideration that my son doesn't get?

BK: Give it up. The Supreme Court's alread declared that the point system is racist. That part of the debate's over, and you lost it.

Now the only question is this: how long will the mealy-mouthing over "diversity," which allows rich black kids to get benefits that poor white, Arab, Asian, and kids of other races don't get, go on?

I hoped my son would grow up in a world where we no longer discriminate based on race. That hope's just about out the window, but I won't stop arguing and fighting to make it happen anyway.

The biggest question of the moment: just how far will this "diversity" stuff be pushed, now that Pandora's Box has been opened, and we've declared "diversity" is sufficient justification for racial discrimination?

But by the way: you act like there are no inner city white kids with poor curriculums. Why is that? Is it because you're not aware that they exist, or because you think they're relevant?

Didn't mention the inner city Arab or Asian kids either, I notice. Why's that?

BK:

This isn't a cut and dried issued of being born black is worth more then a perfect on the SATs. Again, this is an extremely, blatant misleading statement.

YES IT IS

What part of 20 points for “underrepresented racial or ethnic minority group,” defined as African American, Hispanic, or Native American, 20 points and UP TO 12 points on the test score category - DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

That conversation you had must have been like the blind leading the blind. You want to continue lying to yourself go right ahead.
It may help you sleep better but nobody's buying it.

I love how you try to convince us that your so called "rightwing nuts" are lying in someway.

It can't be misleading if IT IS TRUE

A student who scores a perfect on the SAT's is most likely going to qualify for other points given for an outstanding academic record. All the academic points total 112!"

Well, aren't you somethin' a whole 112. Did it occur to you that a person would have to have really super high almost perfect everything to get all 112.

So poor white children have to work their ass off and still get fucked by the system but black, hispanic and NA kids can glide by on mediocre grades cuz they only need to come up with 80 points.

BTW, where is it written that there are NO BLACK ALUMNI? Legacy admits can be more than just children of alumni they can be nieces and nephews and/or sisters and brothers...

They can also be an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority group.

Dean:
Whoa! When did you become a ventriloquist? Kudos to you, my good friend -- you've done a great job at putting words in my mouth!

I have not weighed in anywhere on these questions about affirmative action, racial quotas, point systems, reverse disrcimation, and all the rest, in connection with the recent US Supreme Court decision over the University of Michigan undergraduate and law school admissions standards.

Why?

Because frankly, I don't give a damn about societal unfairness. Leveling any playing field for one person with an additional boost sanctified by a supreme court ruling usually means taking away an equal amount of right from someone else.

The only totally impartial means of judging the aptitude of any student for higher studies would be a color-blind test, in which race, ethnicity, marital status, religious perversion (if any), wealth, health, sex, city and state of origin, age, sexual perversion (if any), political preference, drug use (if any), or any other consideration -- including ability to play football or basketball -- were all masked by a single identification number. There are so many openings. You would all be graded, to two decimal points. You lose out on the priority list by 1/100 of a point, tough shit. Try elsewhere or try here next year.

In my young years in Chicago, in the late 1950s, I knew a black guy in Chicago, Rudy M. (With last name masked out to protect his privacy, if he is still alive, which I sincerely hope. He was a man of exceptional quality.)

Rudy was a professional structural and industrial engineer, with a university degree, working for a nationally recognized firm of engineering and construction contractors. I don't know what he had to do to get such an educational background. Nor do I know where he obtained the connections to get the high level jobs he held. Probably I would not have given a damn even if I did know. Because he had more technical smarts than I did, and that made him naturally superior. To the best of my knowledge, there were no affirmative action programs available in American universities in the early 1950s when he probably would have undertaken his studies.

That is the standard by which I judge the world. You are excellent, good, fair or inferior based on your standardized performance. If you are excellent, I really don't care why or how you got that way. Likewise if you are inferior. Some people are suitable to design suspension bridges. Others are suitable to take orders across fastfood counters. In a truly meritorious society, all the Rudy-like people are free to rise to the highest level of their capabilities in whatever endeavor to which they turn their attention, reaping awards in proportion to their skills and abilities, and dominating lesser folk unable to manifest such achievements. This is called "capitalism", and I make no apologies for it.

There's another factor. I think the "university" as has been organized and managed over the past 150 years is approaching an inevitable end of its usefulness. I think the day will come when the magnificent campuses and their venerable building will be as empty as the great cathedrals of the Roman Catholic church; which is what happens to edifices which outlive public acceptance of their original purpose. All, or nearly all the significant studies carried out in these places can increasingly be accomplished at far lesser expense online with or without audiovisual instructional aids. People teach themselves computer science, calculus, microbiology, advanced French, and all sorts of useful knowledge in just this manner. Seminars? The discussion in which I have taken part on Dean's World are probably as good as any in which I participated while earning two university degrees. I think this is one of several waves of the future.

So forget the Wolverines (or whatever other silly name) the University of Michigan goes by. Their real mascots -- dumb ones at that -- are the taxpayers of their state who sustain all this nonsense.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

"Can’t congress simply pass a law, or Bush an executive order, stating that if a school receives government funding of any sort, or enrolls students who receive government scholarships or loan guarantees of any sort, then that school is not allowed to make any inquiries about or allusions to an applicant’s race anywhere on the application form?"

Law, certainly - if Congress had the guts to pass it and Bush had the guts to sign it. Executive order, I'm not so sure. I have a hunch that it may be preempted by existing federal laws governing institutions of higher learning that accept federal funding. President Gephardt may get to "do executive orders" to thwart any laws he doesn't like, but no other President has this power AFAIK.

I wasn't being a ventriloquist, I was illustrating the nature of your questions, Ara. But I tried to answre them anyway.

Now, when will you answer my questions? I'd really like that. In fact, here there are again, rephrased:

1) Why did your generation of "liberals" tell us, your children, that racial discrimination was immoral in and of itself, a cause of horrible and unnecessary strife, and fundamentally unAmerican, then do a backflip and say you didn't really mean it?

2) How long will you continue to try to justify racial discrimination against my children, and against the children of Asian immigrants, Indian immigrants, and so on? Will this extend to my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren?

At what point will you tell me I no longer have to accept that child A is more important than child B because of his skin color?

3) Why do Colin Powell's kids deserve special consideration that mine do not? Why does my son's best friend, who lives 10 doors down and goes to the same school, deserve special consideration that my son does not, just because my son's not black and his best friend is?

4) Why don't you want to extend "diversity" benefits of special consideration to Indians, Arabs, Pakistanis, and Asians?

5) Should we cap the number of Jews and woman allowed into universities, since there are a disproportionate number of them there now? Wouldn't that lead to a more diverse population?

6) Should we extend your diversity concept on college campuses to ideological, political, and religious diversity?

You don't have to answer all of them. I'd pay money just to hear you answer #3. Because no one on your side of the debate has been willing to even acknowledge that question. In fact, I'll ask it one more time, just to make sure you got it:

* * * THIS IS THE QUESTION THAT THEY WILL NOT ANSWER * * *

Why do Colin Powell's kids deserve special consideration that mine do not? Why does my son's best friend, who lives 10 doors down and goes to the same school, deserve special consideration that my son does not, just because my son's not black and his best friend is?

* * * THAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT THEY ALWAYS REFUSE TO ANSWER, OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE * * *

Prediction: they still won't answer it. Maybe won't even acknowledge it.

Do I sound like I'm ranting? I'm not. I'm mostly sad. And weary. Angry? A bit. "Betrayed and sickened" is the real feeling I have though.

Disappointment in my friends, and my country. And the people who taught me my liberal values, and then showed me that they were lies.