« A Respite | Main | The American Experiment »



First of all let us not misplace my position on this subject. To do so is intellectual dishonesty. I have on two occasions stated my postion as to where I stand on Affirmative Action. I am for it in limited and very subjective cases . To say to people that I am a proponent of Affirmtive Action in the way that you did, would lead people to believe that I view it in the same manner as you do. For anyone who needs to see my views, they can look back at my last two comments.

Now you seem to be stuck on the position that Affirmative Action is only for those who are less qualified or less worthy than others. I tend to look at Affirmative Action as a means to provide inclusion to qualified people that have been locked out of many institutions whether the workplace or learning institution. Have you not heard of the term "Glass Ceiling" or "Old Boys Network" ? If so, what exactly do these terms mean to you?

I personally cringe when I hear people using the term sending messages to people that you just have to work hard, and Affirmative Action is just a crutch for those who are too lazy, or not intelligent enough to succeed. Why do you, and those who oppose Affirmative Action so strongly never address the harm that is done when white males are hired, promoted, and given advantage when they bring nothing more to the table than being white and or male? To assume that every white male in a position of power or achievement got there on merit alone is just as false as thinking that every minority or woman got to her position of standing through Affirmative Action. Case in point look at people such as Carly Fiorina, or Kenneth I Chenault. Look at the road and hard work they put in to get to where they have, then compare that to people such as Ken Lay or Bernie Ebbers.

Most of all no one is in favor of people people who are not qualified in any position. My contention is nothing more than there are plenty of qualified minorities and women out there that are qualified, yet are still at times overlooked and denied access to power. All I want to do, is to see Corporate America, and other places more a reflection of the diversity of our society instead of keeping up an Old Boys Network. I still have not heard what is your position on Legacy Preference, such as the one George Bush received to get into Harvard. Is that not Affirmative Action on some part.

Very interesting Princeton article and experiment can be viewed here. It is one of many that can be found that demonstrate some of my points.



Greg, you make it seem as if only women and minorities are locked out of places. But those of us who are white males are also locked out from certain places, if we come from the wrong class background and/or went to the wrong schools. I'm on the margins of academia. I can see perfectly well that even the most radical of leftist professors have no problems with locking out job candidated who went to the "wrong" schools. The fact that they are more likely to be poor than those who went to the right schools doesn't bother them a bit.



I will not doubt what you say, but I am wondering is your opinion based on fact or on your opinion? If it is based in fact, I would love to read the source from where you base this response on.


Greg - the moment that you give a slot at school or a job to someone whose qualifications are less than someone else's, you are giving that spot to someone less qualified. No other way to look at it. While the person with less qualifications may be able to do the job, it still is always superior to give to the person best qualified.

Let me put it this way; for decades in our nation, we gave jobs and school slots to people based upon race; the white folks got 'em and the black folks didn't, irrespective of how smart or how qualified or how hard they were going to work.

It wasn't right then - and it isn't right today.

I was listening on the radio today to a discussion of affirmative action. I have zero problem with giving help to those who need help, if they have been raised in a poor area, and need more education or training to get ahead in life.

Just don't base it on race.

You cannot teach people that it is wrong to judge people based upon their race or their sex - and then turn around and base your decisions on just those classifications.


My wife teaches at a small liberal arts college. She was asked to help out with another department's search and when she asked what criteria were being used, she was told they wanted someone who was "good," and this was futher explained to mean someone from an elite school. The woman who told her this is a leftist. A couple further points could be mentioned about this incident, that the woman made an exception for her own alma mater, which is not elite but which she insisted is considered good in that area. Also, that she was saying this to my wife, who herself did not go to an elite school. Just imagine the outrage on the left if someone had told a black that they wanted someone who was white, or if a woman had been told that they wanted a man. But saying they wanted someone good, meaning from an elite school, to someone who is not from an elite school doesn't cause any outrage.

I could add lots of stories about my own treatment in academia, and those of other people as well.


This discussion on this complicated issues has gotten pretty pointless. I ask about legacy and alumni preferences, and that point is ignored and not answered. In an earlier discussion someone talks about Ward Connerly and Republican's feelings on Affirmative Action, and when I bring up the position of Collin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, that point is ignored too. I ask JFP for some study or statistics to back up his point, and all I get is his personal story. I know I can share many of personal stories which happened to myself and friends and family, but I choose to base my discussion with facts. So, seeing that that this discussion has broken down to nothing more than opinion, instead of facts, I will just leave it be.


Greg - I'm sorry that I didn't address your points.

Legacy & alumni preferences. In theory, I disdain them. I'd like to see everyone get in due to what they've accomplished. But - I'm afraid that they're a fact of life when it comes to fundraising. A school that would stop them most likely would have a far, far more difficult time raising funds from alumni. So - the least of evils, I suppose.

Colin Powell and Condi Rice were young in a different era. As I have said - I do believe that racial affirmative action made sense 30 or 40 years ago, when we were in the beginning stages of civil rights changes. Enough is dissimilar today, however, where I believe that now racial and gender affirmative action create more problems and cause more difficulty than any good they might produce.

I can't give you stats for JFP's point. As a former grad student, however, who was close with many faculty, I can tell you that in many circumstances, how people get selected for school spots is a joke. I've been told that some "decision making" sessions are little more than a bunch of faculty getting loaded over pizza, with applications being tossed in a pile and laughed over.

Sad - but true. I would guess that the tales which JFP produced are all too true, also.

Life can be unfair; very unfair.


You didn't actually ask for a study or statistics to back up my point. You asked whether it was fact or opinion. I then gave an example of one instance where I knew it was a fact. And why should you need a study or statistics about this? Would you need a study about slavery to decide that it was evil? Wouldn't personal stories do just as well?


24% of Americans believe that the Internet is able for a time to replace them with a loved one. For obvious reasons, such sentiments particularly prevalent among residents of the United States alone. Both men and women can replace the beloved, beloved trips to the World Network. However, the willingness to such transactions vary among followers of different ideologies: conservatives frowned relate to this idea, and the "progressive-minded" on the contrary, Nerkarat it.

Study company Zogby International also showed that every fourth resident of the United States have their own representation in the web-site or internet-stranichka. Creating internet-dvoynikov most passionate about young people (18-24 years of age) - 78% of them have personal Web page. In doing so, 68% of those surveyed said that the World Wide Web, they do not appear in its original capacity, their virtual overnight seriously different from the real.

Only 11% of Americans would agree implantable microchip in his brain, which would provide them with direct contact with the Internet. But the situation is changing, in the case of children. Almost every fifth resident of the United States would agree to equip their child safety device which would allow him to track the movement in space on the Internet.

10% of U.S. stated that the Internet brings them to God. " In turn, 6% are convinced that because of the existence of the World Wide Web God away from them.

And how you feel? Sorry bad English.

The comments to this entry are closed.