I cannot disguise my anger over things that were said to me this week in anonymous emails sent to me concerning my anti-affirmative action position.
By definition you are the classic black race denier fed on by the GOP. Our past is exploited by those with lighter skin color the traits bred by hatred and devilment are the tools of Satan against persons from God’s continent Africa. Satan is using your gifts against your own race. The hand of justice of Jesus Christ Almighty made the law give what was taken from us. Your speak ing against the will and punishment of the Lord. All of this stubborn willfulness you have against your own will destroy your mind the wages of sin. Reading your site will occasion me to pray for you to understand that for centuries the African man was maltreated by those you know defend. Bless you for even the ignorant Babylon harlot of Satan is God’s child.
Could it be that I am that misunderstood? Am I the only one who sees that by rejecting affirmative action, I am saying that minorities and women are empowered enough to find and secure opportunities without government imposed quotas?
Is the cartoon above of these words really depicting the life of Afrocity so accurately that I should hang my head in shame?
1. Survived on welfare (check)
2. Food stamp recipients (check)
3. Lived in poor neighborhood (check)
4. Lived amongst crime, crumbling schools, guns, drugs…It depends on which neighborhood. During the 1970’s and 80’s, we did not have to worry about getting shot by our classmates wearing black trench coats.
5. Feels that that rich fat cat white man is only rewarded? Honestly no. I did feel that Caucasians exhibited stronger familial bonds, especially among male role models.
6. Affirmative action helped me get into college. (???I dunno???)
I cannot say that I know the answer to that question.
I know that I certainly could not have paid for my college education without a federal Pell Grant, being a dorm adviser, work-study, and Staffiord student loans. The question still remains, did my being a black female get me into college? If so, was that the only reason I was admitted? It is only fair to also question if my race and gender were the only reasons I was admitted to grad school. Are those factors the only reason why I have the job I have now?
These are not easy questions for me. They represent everything I am against about affirmative action and for this I will admit that I am envious of Caucasian people or anyone who is not a minority because no one can ever wonder if you are in the place you are or have been because of your color. This cartoon speaks for itself. She was on welfare and fought her way out of a crime ridden neighborhood, only to be offered admission because she was a woman of color.
As an African American student at a Texas university, I have met my share of people-well meaning- people who thought that all minorities get into college based on their skin color. These were mostly white women who told me this. “Why do I have work to get into college when you get a free ride?”
How would it make you feel to say that your existence as a successful black woman, your every accolade is shadowed with doubt because you are a black woman? It makes me feel as if nothing I have accomplished is really my own that I will always be indebted to the majority for my success. The difficulties I have with affirmative action policies leave me in the minority once again as many liberals and a newly conservative liberal (WTF?) Colin Powell disagrees with my position:
Colin Powell On Affirmative Action
“Equal rights and equal opportunity mean just that. They do not mean preferential treatment…I benefited from equal opportunity and affirmative action in the Army, but I was not shown preference. The Army made sure that performance would be the only measure of advancement. When equal performance does not result in equal advancement, then something is wrong with the system, and our leaders have an obligation to fix it. If a history of discrimination has made it difficult for certain Americans to meet standards, it is only fair to provide temporary means to help them catch up and compete on equal terms. Affirmative action in the best sense promotes equal consideration, not reverse discrimination.”
-Colin Powell, My American Journey
In all fairness Thomas Sowell offers an opposing view:
What about the magic benefits of “diversity” — a word repeated endlessly, without a speck of evidence of those benefits? If diversity is so essential, how does a nation like Japan, with a homogeneous population, manage to get its students educated (better than ours), its work done, and its people living in more harmony than we have?
What about the notion that blacks would not be able to get into colleges and universities without affirmative action? After group preferences and quotas were banned in California’s state universities, the number of black students in the University of California system has risen. Fewer are attending Berkeley and more are attending other universities, whose normal admissions standards they meet. These students are now more likely to graduate, which is the whole point. Before, they were being used like movie extras to create a background — until most either dropped out or flunked out.
What about the notion that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty? The black poverty rate was cut in half before affirmative action — and has barely changed since then.
The topic of affirmative action has now cropped into everything because of the Ricci v. DeStafano Supreme Court ruling. The white firefighters won. Why is that such a crime? They deserved their promotions. Ironically, over a decade ago the motion picture American History X had a scene in which actor Edward Norton was being told by his father a firefighter about two black males that received jobs because of their race.
While many liberals believe that SCOTUS got the Ricci case wrong, they can rest easy knowing that affirmative action is still intact in America’s universities:
Higher-Education Experts Are Relieved at Supreme Court Ruling on Employment Tests
June 30, 2009
By ERIC KELDERMAN
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday in a case involving the use of race in hiring could affect city and state governments seeking to diversify their work forces, but it is not expected to cause major ripples in colleges’ hiring or admissions processes—a prospect some higher-education experts had feared.
While the decision is more expansive than some legal experts had predicted, it will likely do little to undermine race-based admissions policies at colleges, said Robert M. O’Neil, emeritus professor of law at the University of Virginia and director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. The majority opinion is based entirely on a hiring practice by a municipal government and doesn’t mention the Supreme Court’s landmark 2003 decisions regarding college admissions. Those cases were Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the limited use of race in admissions at the University of Michigan Law School; and Gratz v. Bollinger, which struck down the same university’s undergraduate admissions policy, which also gave preference to minority students.
In those decisions, Mr. O’Neil explained, the court ruled on a constitutional issue: whether the policies violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
In Gratz, the court also found that the admissions policy violated a federal statute—Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in programs that receive federal aid. But in Ricci, the justices ruled that the City of New Haven violated only a statute, Title VII, and they did not discuss whether throwing out the firefighter test violated any constitutional rights.
Experts Divided on Effects
Higher-education legal experts were more divided over whether Monday’s ruling would affect university employment practices.
Ada Meloy, general counsel at the American Council on Education, said colleges’ hiring practices would be unaffected. “The opinions rendered today do not explicitly or impliedly threaten the complex and nuanced faculty hiring or promotion procedures used in most institutions which struggle to increase diversity while complying with the law,” Ms. Meloy said.
But Roger Clegg, president and general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity, which filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs in Ricci, disagreed. “Unfortunately a lot of universities do weigh race and ethnicity in their hiring and promotion practices,” he said. “And if you do that, you are on legally thin ice.”
For example, sometimes a university hiring committee, after getting an initial pool of five finalists, will throw out that pool if the panel doesn’t like the racial makeup of that pool, he said.
Mr. Lorber countered that that kind of an action would already have been illegal under the law. Monday’s decision only deals narrowly with hiring or promotional policies that rely solely on a standardized test, like New Haven used.
If a faculty committee, however, chose to hire someone from a pool of equally qualified candidates, it could still use gender or race as the deciding factor, Mr. Lorber said.
The enormous amount of analysis that will arise from the ruling will, however, have a large impact on one particular sector of higher education, he added: “It’s going to affect law schools, because there will be 17 million law-review articles written.”
See, is everything all better in liberal land now? And here of course comes a surprise for many of you. There are people like me who actually turned down scholarship money based on my race. You can’t force me to take it you know. All of those years on welfare made me not want to be a burden on the U.S. taxpayer anymore.
There are also people who are not like me.
Wall Street Journal
June 26, 2009
Blago’s Back: Illinois Admissions Scandal Widens to the Law School
The situation out at the University of Illinois keeps getting stranger — and more damning, it seems, amid increasing allegations that the school gave preferential admissions treatment to hundreds of college applicants who had help from insiders.Last week we touched on the situation, after the Chicago Tribune sued the university to gain access to student records.
The latest news cuts even closer to our heart, because it involves law-school applicants. And we can practically guarantee the latest allegations will send a shudder up the spine of anyone who’s applied — or even thought of applying — to law school.
According to the Trib, in one e-mail exchange, University of Illinois Chancellor Richard Herman forced the law school to admit an unqualified applicant backed by then- Gov. Rod Blagojevich while seeking a promise from the governor’s liason that five law school graduates would get jobs. The applicant was reportedly a relative of a deep-pocketed Blagojevich campaign donor. The request was reportedly pushed by a U of I trustee named Lawrence Eppley. According to the Trib (brace yourselves, LBers):
When Law School Dean Heidi Hurd balked on accepting the applicant in April 2006, Herman replied that the request came “Straight from the G. My apologies. [Eppley] has promised to work on jobs (5). What counts?”
Hurd replied: “Only very high-paying jobs in law firms that are absolutely indifferent to whether the five have passed their law school classes or the Bar.”
Hurd’s e-mail suggests that students getting the jobs are to be those in the “bottom of the class.” Law school rankings depend in part on the job placement rate of graduates.
Let us pause and catch our breath. In other words, in exchange for admitting a less-than-qualified applicant, the law-school dean demanded five “very high-paying jobs” to students regardless of whether those five passed their classes or the Bar.
People who pay to get jobs in top law firms, in Chicago??? Nah.
There are people who have money and power. People like Barack Obama and his friends Rezko, Blago, and others who receive favors all of the time. Affirmative action does not level the playing field. It does point you in the direction of those who are on the field due to race or gender, and not to the others on the field due to money, nepotism or standing. Guess who the crowd scrutinizes? Guess whose picture they check out in the program to see your credentials? Guess who is at a disadvantage…again?
Autographed Letter Signed,