« Yeah? So? | Main | Saturday Matinee »



Scott missed two notable quotes.

"I wish it was possible for everything to be race-neutral in this country, but I'm afraid we're not yet at that point where things are race-neutral. I believe race should be a factor among many other factors in determining the makeup of a student body of a university."

~Collin Powell

"I believe that while race-neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body," ~Condoleeza Rice

But that is not where it ends. He then goes into speaking about the Constitution and color blind law, but omits the fact at the time of the Constitution blacks (and by that I mean men) where 3/5 of a human being. Then there is that talking of the 13th and 14th Amendments, but fails to acknowledge that it took to 1920 and the 19th Amendment for even women (that is black and white) to vote.

Now let's look at what you say. I quote you with this statement:

"I believe that anyone, barring some specific mental disability, has the capability to prosper, achieve and do well in our nation."

Which I agree is somewhat true, but as a society what do we owe as a country to make sure that everyone has the same access and ability to prosper? I fully believe that many people reside in inferior housing, receive inferior education, receive inferior health care access which in turn leads to inferior jobs, and an inferior ability to prosper. Many people in this country spend a lifetime in this vicious circle, or in this vicious cycle going in circles. Giving birth to children who see no hope for the future but to follow these miserable footsteps. What do you propose to do then, and do you not think that society betters when everyone is given these access to prosper. It basically starts with education, and weaves it way from there I believe.

Lastly who is calling you a racist and what do they base this charge on? I sure hope it is something more than you just calling for those to be judge solely on their character. There would seem to me that there would be something more to it than judging people on their character and actions alone.


Greg, I agree that some people need extra help. But - I think that help ought to be based upon need and requirements - and not on race.

I'd like to see vouchers available for kids' schooling; whether black, brown, white or any other color, a child deserves to attend a decent school. And I do believe in giving targeted, sensible, aid to get people out of poverty and into a productive lifestyle. But again; base it upon need and not race.

In specialized instances, IF violation of our civil rights laws have occurred, then I am willing to use racial affirmative action as a remedy. Barring this, however, blacks should not be viewed as inferior beings, requiring "affirmative action" to have a chance at succeeding in life.

The people who are calling me a racist seem to think that because I am against racial affirmative action in most instances, I must be prejudiced against helping black people.

I'd give you more details, but - frankly, I find their reasoning illogical and impossible to follow.


I am assuming that in your mind you see Affirmative Action as discrimination and something that is not needed in today's world. I cannot speak for you, but I am only assuming that this is your opinion. In regards with that here is my thought on that train of logic.

Let's deal with one major misconception. Affirmative Action is not just regulated to African American people. Women have done well under Affirmative Action, and many actually believe that they are the largest benefactor of Affirmative Action. So when we speak of Affirmative Action, we need to keep that in mind. Now to the arguments.

Many people look at Affirmative Action as discrimination, I again believe that this is a false analogy. The problem with this line of thought is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.

Another argument against Affirmative Action claims that is tends to undermine the self esteem of minorities and women. Although affirmative action may have this effect in some cases, interview studies have consistently shown that such reactions are rare. For instance, a Gallup poll asked employed Blacks and employed White women whether they had ever felt others questioned their abilities because of affirmative action. Nearly 90% of respondents said no (which is understandable -- after all, White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem). Indeed, in many cases affirmative action may actually raise the self-esteem of women and minorities by providing them with employment and opportunities for advancement. There is also evidence that affirmative action policies increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment among beneficiaries

Still others feel that Affirmative Action brings in less qualified and unskilled people into school and the workforce. While most people I know who advocate Affirmative Action are not just looking at getting any face into the setting, I tend to view Affirmative Action in these means.

Selection among equally qualified candidates. The mildest form of affirmative action selection occurs when a female or minority candidate is chosen from a pool of equally qualified applicants (e.g., students with identical college entrance scores). Studies have shown that a large section of the public does not see this type of affirmative action as discriminatory.

Selection among comparable candidates. A somewhat stronger form occurs when female or minority candidates are roughly comparable to other candidates (e.g., their college entrance scores are lower, but not by a significant amount). The logic here is similar to the logic of selecting among equally qualified candidates; all that is needed is an understanding that, for example, predictions based on an SAT score of 620 are virtually indistinguishable from predictions based on an SAT score of 630.

I am curious as to what is your take on legacy preferences that many colleges elect to use. Like the one that Bush got when he went to Harvard. Is not that Affirmative Action, or is that OK?

The comments to this entry are closed.