Autographed Letter Signed

A Mostly Center-Right Place For Those With Irritable Obama Syndrome and Diversity Fatigue

Thursday Stitch n’ Bitch: Affirmative Action Speaks Louder Than SCOTUS Words July 2, 2009

Affirmative-action_cartoonI 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.

Miss Afrocity:

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?

Let’s compare:

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.

vacation approved

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:

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

“Affirmative Action” Quotas on Trial

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:


Chronicle of Higher Education

Higher-Education Experts Are Relieved at Supreme Court Ruling on Employment Tests

June 30, 2009


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,



35 Responses to “Thursday Stitch n’ Bitch: Affirmative Action Speaks Louder Than SCOTUS Words”

  1. TheRealKim Says:

    Afrocity, even though I still consider my views those of a liberal democrat, I stop by here first thing every morning to read your posts.

    Your posts are always so spot on, that I find myself agreeing with you (hmmm, am I still a dem?).

    • afrocity Says:

      You are always our Kim that is all that matters. Is your son home yet?

    • kywrite Says:

      One of the points that Violet Socks keeps making on Reclusive Leftist is that liberals and conservatives are much, much closer ideologically than we think we are. It is the party structure, Democrat and Republican alike, that have convinced us we are radically different.

      If people keep coming together in non-party-delineated ways — on blogs like this and Reclusive, or at events like the Tea Parties — we’ll ALL figure that out.

      I keep thinking about what Afrocity said on her About page: the only things that kept her in the Democrat pen were her pro-choice stance and her race, and the second one really didn’t matter. Violet Socks keeps repeating to her feminist followers that if liberal feminists agreed to disagree on the pro choice thing — and conservative feminists did the same re pro life — women as a whole have enough power to take on the whole party system and get their own candidate elected. It is to BOTH parties’ advantage to keep us divided.

      I’m actually a pro-choice (reluctantly, because abortion is an atrocity) conservative libertarian who is strongly liberal, technically, on several social issues. You’d be surprised how many of us there are.

  2. Liberal Larry Says:

    Dissapointed many I bet I won right to stay here.
    The party of no lost to give me the boot.
    Get the arguments right and why should I be some threat to any of you?

    Nobody here defends the points.

    • manbearpig68 Says:

      Once again you’re way off.. If you actually defended your arguments with some facts instead of just making accusations and Ludicrous unfounded remarks, then maybe you would get respect.. I just hope nobody else responds to you anymore until you do that.. Goodbye Larry…..

    • afrocity Says:

      The tie was broken today. You are gone my friend. It is not because you are a liberal. It is because you have failed to impress my readers with your comments.

    • Madrigal Says:

      Actually, I don’t think he/she is real anyway. I think the whole LL thing is a stupid hoax… a waste of people’s time.

      to LL sockpuppet,
      If you want respect… you have to treat others with respect.

      Since you don’t technically exist anyway (since you are probably a fake personae)… then we are only following your lead…

      You played a game of ghost writer…now you are a ghost in our memory-

    • AfricanAgainstO Says:

      BTL – Bomb Thrower Larry

      ha “defends the points” – you copied and pasted what I read on other sites. Probably plagiarized. I would have let you post just to show how asinine you are, You will probably be back under a different name. I bet you don’t like getting kicked out by a woman.

  3. LJSNAustin Says:

    Afrocity, you have made me stop and think with this post. I’ve never had to wonder about why I got this job or that job…this second chance or that second look. In putting myself in your shoes, I would be very frustrated with having to wonder about such things. Just as you have, I have worked hard to try and be ABOVE average, probably because I was hiding in the closet for so long! I agree with you…we have to get to the point where people are judged by their performance, credentials, abilities. Not the color of their skin. Hmmm…..sounds like a certain presidential election.

    The only exception to me at the moment is voting for women…just because they are women. I am there.

    • boldandbald Says:

      I am curious, how is it that you can justify making that exception? Wouldn’t that female candidate be faced with the same doubts that plague someone of color? Wouldn’t she have to wonder if the only reason she were elected was because of her gender and not because of her performance, credentials, abilities? I don’t mean to sound flippant. I am genuinely curious about this distinction that you make.

      • afrocity Says:

        Lana there are some women I would not support if they ran for president, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazille is another McKinney and I don’t share the same views.

        2008 taught me to vote for the person.
        I was fine with Hillary, really for who she was. I was truly shocked, truly that so many perceived Obama as the better candidate. I mean really, it seemed so logical to be that she was superior forget her gender. She was better.

      • LJSNAustin Says:

        bold, I am at a slash-and-burn, watershed point in my life in this regard. I believe we MUST have equal representation in order for women to finally have a seat at the damn table and for our voices to be heard at all. Everything else be damned. As I read on another blog this morning, until we have that equal representation, men will continue to divide us based on various issues, like “choice.” Call me hypocritical if you want. I’m just being honest about where I stand.

      • Janis Says:

        B&B, let me put it to you another way. Do you consider it unfair to blindly defend any woman anywhere from rape or a beating? I mean, if you answer yes, you’re being unfair. You should determine first whether she’s worthy and a decent human being before you defend her.

        To me, and to a lot of other women, this is what this has boiled down to. What has been done to two female political candidates, with very different political opinions, has been so disgusting, so vicious, so absolutely over-the-top insane, that they must be defended no matter what their stances.

        And when it comes to political candidates, the only truly effective way to defend them is to vote for them. ALL WOMEN running for office will be subjected to this, without exception. That’s what 2008 taught me. Every single one will be publicly slaughtered for being a woman. Period.

        If EVERY SINGLE WOMAN in that position is going ot be demolished purely for being a woman, then they need to be defended. And none of this lily-livered, “I protest against her treatment but wno’t vote for her” garbage, either. The ONLY way to support a political candidate against anything they endure is to vote for them. Otherwise, all it means is, “Sure, it’s terrible what she went through, but I don’t care about it enough to put muscle behind it.”

        That’s why it’s important to me to vote for every woman who runs for office, no matter what. Because she will be subjected to such horrific treatment that I must stand against it and defend her. And the only way to do so, the only true way, is to vote for her.

        I either care enough about the vicious, fang-bearing humiliation that Sarah Palin endured enough to put my electoral muscle behind it, or I do not. Period.

      • Janis Says:

        Another way to look at it: show me a man who endured being caled a slut, a whore, had his face photoshopped onto a porn star, had his teenaged kids mocked as rape victims, had his handicapped baby mocked, was told that he had no business running for office with small children, had an entire national media imply 24/7 that his hormones made him psychotic and depressed, and had a Grammy-award-winning rap star make a song about raping him in the Oval Office, and I’ll vote for him, too.

        I will support and hence vote for any candidate who endures that. Right now though, they’re all women.

      • boldandbald Says:

        LJSN, I want to make it clear that I was not saying that you were being hypocritical. I truly was interested in hearing your reasoning. I understand the desire to vote for someone that you believe will represent a particular shared interest that you may have. Just be careful that the person you vote for sees the solutions to the problems the same way you do. Otherwise you could be in for a huge disappointment.

        I guess the way I look it is that just because a candidate is female, doesn’t mean that her election is in the best interest of women. Most of the posters here seem to agree that AffAct is not a good thing for the Black community, so electing a black person who believes in AffAct over a white person who opposes it, is not in the best interest of black people as a whole, even though the candidate is black. I believe that we need to stop looking at things like race and gender all together, and start looking at the person’s record, their character, their stances on the issues. In the end, what is best for this country as a whole is going to be best for all of the different special interest groups individually.

      • WMCB Says:

        B&b, let me try to explain, because I think your question is a genuine one.

        In the case of jobs, or college admissions, etc, there are existing laws that forbid hateful sexist treatment, and can be used to force compliance where such exists. If a business or a school demeans women by calling them whores and airheads and cunts, and refuses them their rights in that way, something can be DONE about it: i.e. enforce the existing anti-discrimination laws on those jerks. There’s no need for affirmative action, because we already have the means to address unfairness where it exists. I don’t want quotas, etc, because as long as hiring based on sex is not allowed, that’s all we need. We are perfectly capable of achieving so long as the standards are fair.

        In politics, it’s different. What we saw this year with both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin was a huge all-out effort to completely destroy them by appealing to pure hatred and demeaning of their female-ness. In politics, one can’t appeal to the law because no law exists to cover discrimination in the political realm, the way it does in other areas.

        I do have a problem with voting purely on race or sex “just because”. And there are a few women out there whom I could not vote for (Pelosi would be one.) However, I think that for many women, the only option we have to protest that kind of treatment of women attempting to run for office is to simply vote for them. To vote for them again and again, until the “boyz club” gets it through their heads that their insane hatred is a losing proposition for them, and they’d better get used to the idea of women running and being treated with respect. Is that an extreme response? Possibly. But for many, the savagery we saw this past election season warrants it.

        I hope that it won’t be necessary forever. I hope that it is a short-term protest response, in order to send a message that we will not tolerate that treatment, and will keep shoving female candidates at them until they grow up and GET OVER IT. But for now, our vote in support of women running is almost the only tool we have with which to fight back. At least for the moment, any woman running who is not an absolute crook or pedophile or murderer will get my vote – purely to send a message.

        You may not agree, and that’s fine, but can you at least in some small way understand that?

      • boldandbald Says:

        WMCB, that does make it a little clearer, thanks. My gut still tells me to say “Vote the person not the gender”, but my head understands why a woman might do that. As long as the ultimate reasons are deeper than just gender, such as you saying that there are exceptions to the rule, then I can accept that.

        LJSN, as I say, I begin to see the point, though I don’t completely agree. As for your comments about gay rights, I would agree that it is about equal rights, not ‘special’ rights. The same goes for women and minorities. That is the problem with AffAct. It grants ‘special’ rights, not equal rights. As WMCB says, there are already plenty of laws, not to mention the Constitution, that address equal rights, and those laws need to be enforced.

        Thank you to both of you for taking my inquiry seriously. I may not completely agree, but at least I can now understand your stance a little better.

      • LJSNAustin Says:

        WMCB, thank you again for stating so well my own feelings about the issue of voting for women and women only. And yes, I have to say, AC, that it WOULD be hard for me to vote for Pelosi or Brazile…knowing how they have behaved and what they’re made of as I now do. But WMCB hit the nail on the head. Until the boyz get it through their skulls that we are not stopping until we get more governance by women, I’m sticking to this strategy.

        B&B, it is very nice to have a civil discussion. Thank you for your respect and for your understanding.

    • afrocity Says:

      Lana I know you and you would never vote for someone that you did not respect man or woman. I cannot see you doing that. I think you are saying that if the woman is someone you respect, you have no issue chosing her over a man.

      • LJSNAustin Says:

        b&b, it goes waaayyy beyond just voting for someone who “sees the solutions to the problems the same way I do.” And of course “we need to stop looking at race and gender altogether”…unfortunately, when I hear this kind of talk I immediately identify it with people telling me (as a gay person) that we gays need to stop asking for “special rights.” If all things were equal in both situations, of course we could stop looking at race and gender altogether and OF COURSE we could stop asking for our rights. That’s not how it is. Women are NOT proportionally represented in government and gays do NOT have equal rights. I am actually starting to believe that gays are going to obtain equal rights before women are going to achieve true equality. SAD.

  4. boldandbald Says:

    First of all, let me say that the fact that AffAct makes someone with your obvious intelligence question whether or not you are deserving of the things that you have achieved is, perhaps, the strongest argument against this terrible legislation. This is what makes AffAct inherently discriminating; there is an assumption that the people being ‘helped’ would be unable to succeed without this ‘help’. Also, if there is one thing that you absolutely do not owe to anyone but yourself it is what you have done here at ALS. No one comes here to read your posts because of your skin color, they do so because of your perception and your writing ability.

    “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.”
    There needs to be one big caveat on this statement. This would be considered OK only if the candidate in question was not white or male; in that case they could definitely expect outrage on the part of the other candidates and the media. I once took the test to become a postal carrier and the whole group was told flat out that the women, minorities and veterans would automatically receive an additional 10 points in the scoring. How is that right? I can see the veterans receiving special consideration due to their service, but being a woman or a minority is not any kind of achievement, it simply is what a person is, not who they are.

  5. John morris Says:

    The idea that a lot of this is about creating window dressing for some whites and power to of a connected minority elite, I think holds a lot of water. Why isn’t there more concern and study as to the actual tangible effects and more reviews and follow up?

    Harvard and Yale get to crow about admitting a lot of students but conceal the tragic number of dropouts among kids who might have been properly qualified to graduate from Michigan or Ohio State.

    Likewise, many politicians and policy makers, like Sonia Sotamayor crawled over themselves to claim credit for the rapid rise in minority home ownership and now are real quiet as a lot of these borrowers are financially wiped out by loans they shouldn’t have gotten in the first place, often to buy houses whose prices were pushed up by lax lending standards.

    “She was a consistent advocate of pushing the agency to provide more mortgages to low-income home buyers. In short, she advocated the kind of aggressive lending practices that helped create the mortgage meltdown.

    Sotomayor’s tenure on the State of New York Mortgage Agency preceded the current mortgage crisis by close to two decades, so she can’t be held directly responsible for our current problems. But in many ways, her approach to home ownership mirrored–or perhaps foreshadowed–the policies that led to the housing boom and bust.”

    Getting to Colin Powell’s views, we need to understand that the brutal reality of warfare helps to keep the military from straying too far from performance based standards. Sooner or later, one finds out the hard way, who can and cannot do the job.

    I just want to say that– hell yes there is racism out there but that does not mean this is the way to deal with it.

    • afrocity Says:

      I am really not into Sotomayor. I did not liek her statements about being a product of affirmative action and her lower test scores. Her being liberal is not the issue for me. Something about her seems sketchy and I can’t quite put my finger on it.

    • WMCB Says:

      I agree. But If I say that among my liberal brethren, I am often accused of not caring about racism or sexism or poverty, or turning a blind eye that it exists. What’s sad is that oten my opposition to AfAc is precisely BECAUSE I do care.

      If the plight of a group is made worse, not better, by a particular policy (such as with the housing scheme for the poor), how is it “anti-poor-people” to point that out? What good did it do to give them houses they can’t afford, longterm?

      I understand the reasoning behind affirmative action – I do. It is a VERY well-intentioned policy on the part of those for it. But I just don’t see that it is doing much to help those it purports to help, not LONG TERM. It gives X number of minorities a job, but does nothing to address the reasons why they weren’t getting jobs to begin with. It assumes that the ONLY reason for that must be racism, tries to fix that racism, and so NO attention is paid to the underlying factors that may be the real reason a particular group is not achieving.

      Some racism still exists – absolutely. And if a business or school or whatever can be shown to have bias in hiring practices, then by all means PROSECUTE them under civil rights statutes. Go after them HARD. But all lack of achievement is not racism.

      By treating it as such, we completely ignore other economic and cultural issues that may have a big hand in “keeping minorities down”. That’s the tragedy to me. That we focus so much on the false solution, that no attention is paid to potential REAL solutions.

  6. TheRealKim Says:

    No AC, he will be in the US in 11 days days, then he has to go through demobilization for 5 days, because of course, any stress he may have gone through can be easily remedied in 5 days.

    • afrocity Says:

      Don’t tell Janet Napolitano! 🙂

    • kywrite Says:

      Oh, where’s he been? (if you don’t mind me asking.) My brother was a sergeant of a NG Army platoon in Afghanistan for 15 mos. and came back with incredible stories and a Bronze Star (he’s the guy who DEMONSTRATED why you don’t drive on the friggin’ roads when you have a HumVee, which saved a lot of American lives — he never lost a guy nor had a serious injury under his command); my son’s a Marine in Okinawa and will probably never get close to action (crosses fingers thinking of N. Korea); and we live in Hawaii cuz the husband is Navy Subs.

      I know several guys who’ve seen some serious action in one or the other theatre, besides my brother. It’s — tough.

      And congrats for having him back! The only way to describe that feeling, for family members: an incredible lightness of being. Worry you didn’t know you had suddenly lifts.

  7. John morris Says:

    I didn’t mean that just as an attack on her, even though I don’t like her much either. The lack of review and interest in examining the effects of these policies says a lot.

    I mean letting kids into schools and not caring if they graduate or lowering lending standards and creating loan defaults is not helpful.

    Personally, I am going to have to say that I don’t think the government should play any role at all in policing private hiring decisions. People as individuals have the right to associate freely, which should include the right to make stupid and racist choices. Of course– other people are also free to not frequent their businesses or associate with them.

    The government itself– since it operates by different rules and is not subject to market competition must not discriminate by race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

    Hiring is pretty complicated and often hard to quantify in black and white so to speak. For example– it might be a value to have more minority cops in heavily minority neighborhoods. But– a white kid from the city might have more knowledge than a black who grew up in a rich isolated suburb.

    Let’s say you have a French, Italian or Mexican Restaurant and you favor Italian and Mexican chefs and staff who know that food really well. Should we really say that it’s unfair that most Farsi translators are Iranian?

    I know I’ve opened up a can of worms with this statement but I don’t think we can force people to like each other or to make wise decisions.

  8. jbjd Says:

    AC, I, too, turned down an accommodation on the bar exam, because I never wanted to have to explain that I was as qualified to practice law as anyone else. (I passed on my first try.)

    • afrocity Says:

      Good job!!! My brother told me I was a fool for turning down the money – that it was due to me because I was black. I have no problem paying back my loans.

  9. WMCB Says:

    Afrocity, I agree with you that the vague doubt that AfAc creates in the minds of both blacks about themselves, and in the general public, is a huge negative effect of that policy.

    As for you, you may never know whether you got any AfAc type consideration in your college applications. But I do know that you are smart as hell, with a stupendous work ethic. I have no doubt that even if you did benefit, you would have found a way to do it even without that consideration. I don’t doubt that at all. You’d have made it anyway, eventually, because you wanted to badly enough.

    • afrocity Says:

      You know yours are making me almost cry. Thank you. After I was on TC the other night, I felt like a monster. I suppose other minorities or women do not feel this way about it. One PUMA asked me why do i care what others think. It is really more about the way I feel about me.

      • WMCB Says:

        Have you read any of black conservative Shelby Steele’s books? “The Content of Our Character”, etc? He deals a lot with the subtle doubts and self-doubts created by affirmative action, and deals with it very honestly.

        Here is one excerpt from his book. Give it a read. You are NOT alone in your thinking that AfAc, despite its “doing good” has a flip side of some very debilitating effects on the confidence and psyche of the black community:

  10. Peter Says:

    Reading this makes me glad I’m a country boy. The only segregation we have out here is on Sunday mornings, for some odd reason.

    Funny, I was in the Service in the mid sixties when we were still getting used to integration. There was a lot of friction on the base camps. Less friction on the smaller firebases. In the bush? Well that latino guy depended on me for his life. I depended on the black guy for mine. What racism we all had to start with was gone fast. It wasn’t what color we were, it was whether we could pack the load.

    When I left Mother Green I signed on with a rural Sheriff’s Dept. Right after I wasn’t a slick sleeved ree-croot anymore the Justice Dept. started looking to see who wasn’t doing just right. So, we looked for good LEOs who would like to get out of the cities, Houston, Dallas, etc. Maybe we looked for specific skin tones to keep the Feds off our backs but we looked for, and found, good cops. Did skin color make us give them our first look? Yes. Did we hire because of that color? Umm, no. If things went bad the nearest other deputies might have been ten minutes away, and that’s if nobody took a wrong turn and ended up in a big cow pasture.

    This is my first visit, I hope I’m welcome back. And, Afrocity, like my fellow deputies from back then, maybe your skin color got you that first look, the quality of your writing talls me that’s not why you are still there and advancing.

Comments are closed.